You can honor them in succession. Each referendum is a distinct event.
Submitting a question to the people and not abiding by the results is undemocratic.
I think, having sought a mandate for action through a single-issue referendum, any government which wants a mandate for different action needs to hold another referendum. But I can’t see a realistic opportunity for doing that. The very next step, whether it happens next week or in six months time, is the service of the Art. 50 notice, and there is no point in a second referendum before any further steps are taken (since nothing will have changed, there is no reason to expect a different outcome, and the electorate will be royally pissed at being asked to go through all this again). But after the Art. 50 notice has been served, any further referendum can’t offer “remain” as an option, since that is not within the power of the UK government to deliver.
In short, I think it’s too late for brinksmanship once you’ve stepped off the brink.
It is not undemocratic if you have a democratic mandate for the course you have chosen, obtained through a subsequent referendum.
The fundamental problem with the way that the Brexit vote was structured was that a supermajority should have been required from the start to make any change to the status quo.
You want there to be a supermajority for such a major change so that the results are incontrovertible, and wouldn’t likely be reversed in a (hypothetical) repeat vote.
Why honor the third referendum but not the second?
Seriously, this is blatant attempt not to abide by a referendum simply because your side lost. It would be more respectable simply to be honest about it.
Because the third referendum gives you a democratic mandate to do so, silly. Just like the second referendum have given the UK government a democratic mandate not to honour the first.
This seems a bit gratuitous. I’ve already said very clearly that I don’t think there should be a third referendum and that, for better or worse, the UK is now committed to leaving. How can you construe that as a “blatant attempt not to abide” by the result of the referendum just held?
All I am saying is that, if circumstances arose in which it became both possible and appropriate to hold a further remain/leave referendum, it would not be undemocratic to hold such a referendum or to abide by the outcome.
The first referendum was honored. Each referendum is a distinct event.
Because it strains credulity to believe that if the “remain” vote won, they’d still advocate for another referendum.
To paraphrase Stuart Lee: That’s like shitting in your own bed as a protest, then realising you have to sleep in a shitted bed.
The referendum outcome went the opposite way of my expectations, my hopes and my own ballot card, as well as against all of the political majorities, and I do think it would have been sensible to have imposed an advance default ‘do nothing’ or ‘cool off and ask again in a year’ policy to handle cases of close-run outcomes (after all, 52% is no landslide), but the time for all of that is not after the poll.
The referendum was a democratic and legal process. Without any prior formal intent to discard close outcomes, it would be a terrible idea to just ask again.
The people were provided an opportunity to voice their views, and they did. It is now up to the political parties (and the crown, if necessary) to act. That action may or may not quite legally comprise doing nothing about leaving the EU. If the government feels unable to act decisively, it may be that HM The Queen needs to step in and kick some ass (which again, may or may not actually result in the UK leaving the EU).
The first referendum will cease to be honoured if and when the UK leaves the EU. The second referendum will cease to be honoured if and when the UK government decides not to submit an Art. 50 notice. But in the first case the action was democratic because the course of action had been approved in a second referendum. In the second case the action will be democratic if the government has sought and obtained a mandate in a third referendum.
No, the “leave” vote would. (The parliamentary petition that is currently attracting 3.5 million possibly dodgy signatures was started by a “leave” supporter in the expectation of losing the second referendum.)
But this is irrelevant. An attempt to change a political position democtratically arriveed at may be “blatant”, as you put it, and still be perfectly democratic. The issue is not whether they seek to change the UK’s position with regard to EU membership, but how. Military coup = undemocratic; new referendum = democratic.
It is the role of the official opposition, in any parliamentary democracy, to attempt blatantly to reverse actions and positions of the democratically-elected government, but that is not an undemocratic role because they try to reverse them through democratic means.
How about if there were to be a no confidence motion and a resulting Snap Election because of the fallout…
Would it then be prudent to run another vote in conjunction with the election?
Or to have one or the other party campaign specifically on remaining in the EU and then the electorate votes that way?
And as a related note - what exactly could the Queen do in terms of kicking butt and taking names over this if parliament reaches some sort of impasse?
I think when you have a mandate for a specific course of action obtained in a single-issue referendum, the only politically credible way to supersede that with another mandate is through another referendum.
I seriously doubt there would be the appetite to hold another referendum simultaneously with a general election. I doubt if there’s an appetite to hold another referendum, period; but if there is, then running a general election at the same time is a needless complication. There’ll only be a second referendum if the government in office promotes legislation for one; they would only do that if they were seeking a mandate not to leave the EU; as long as they are seeking that mandate through a referendum there is no occasion for them to resign and go to the country. And, note, if there’s one thing parliamentarians hate it’s an election.
Officially and openly? Not a lot. The government is responsible to Parliament, not to the Queen. As regards the Prime Minister, the Queen has the right to be consulted by him, the right to warn him and the right to encourage him, but no amount of warning and encouragement will persuade any Prime Minister to embark on a course which Parliament will not accept.
Of course, the Queen is at the centre of a network of long-established and highly-placed individuals, families and interests. In theory this network is well positioned to influence the Conservative party, and could be activated to try and use that influence to persuade the party to some definite course of action. But the whole culture and ethos of the modern monarchy is against that. Some individuals at court might use their court connections to advocate with the powerful for a particular course of action, but I’d be astonished if this would involve or be co-ordinated by the Queen or by senior royals. The court may lobby discreetly with respect to, e.g., the position of the monarchy within the British system, royal funding, royal accountability, that kind of thing. But not on broader policy issues. The Queen may warn or encourage the PM with respect to a particular course of action, but she won’t get her lady-in-waiting to have a quiet word with the Duchess of So-and-So whose brother is a business connection of the Minister for This and That.
It seems to me they should hold general elections soon with candidates clearly stating whether they favor Remain or Leave. If Remain gets a nice majority, then they can call for a new referendum (or perhaps just ignore the Brexit election result).
Another thread in this forum contains:
So it looks like Scotland (and Northern Ireland) has a veto over the invocation of the exit. Perhaps even the parliament cannot deliver what was promised. It’s rather late in the day to have discovered this.
Presumably Parliament can overturn the devolution to the extent necessary to accomplish the Leaving process, however. My assumption would be that Scottish opposition is ultimately a political issue like any other, not a legal obstacle.
I think it would be more accurate to say: There is no agreement as to whether the UK can leave the EU without approval from Scotland. It’s hardly definitive at this point.
The Scots can massively complicate UK departure from the EU. They can mess it up. But, ultimately, they can’t stop it.
The UK government doesn’t need Scottish approval to serve an Art. 50 notice on the EU. Once they serve that notice, then the UK will exit the EU in two years’ time, unless the EU member states agree otherwise. There is nothing Scotland (which is not an EU member state) can do to prevent these events unfolding.
What the Scots can do is refuse to co-operate with implementing whatever agreement is made regarding the terms on which the UK leaves. (And they can refuse to co-operate with the making of the agreement in the first place.) That would leave the UK government with a choice between (a) exiting on the default terms, not on the agreed terms, or (b) revoking the devolution of power to Scotland to the extent necessary to allow the UK government to implement the agreement. That would be a very unpalatable choice for any UK government to have to make; each of the altenatives is worse than the other, so to speak. But if push really came to shove, the UK government would have to do one or other of these things, and Brexit would happen.
I think the Scots are well-positioned to insist on a signifant input into how Brexit happens. But, ultimately, if the UK government is determined on Brexit, the Scots can’t stop it.
About that:
It turns out that the website on which the signatures are collected has no mechanism for ensuring that the people signing the petition are from Britain, or are citizens, or are even human beings. Pranksters on 4chan are bragging about using bots to post thousands of signatures.
I don’t think it’s a logical mistake, I think they’re just meaning “the vote” to implicitly mean “the winning vote”.