In a generic sense, there’s more range than that. The Conservative party could theoretically not allow him to run as a Tory next election. Practically, that would probably be difficult with a sitting MP and a weak PM.
Well, that is the method for a Constitutional Convention. A regular amendment can be passed by 2/3s of each House of the Legislature followed by a majority vote of the people, but your point is well taken: a drastic change should be more than a one time majority vote.
But that wasn’t how it was presented to the British people. It was a one time, majority rules vote, and I even commented at the time that a 52-48 vote for such a major change seemed an awfully thin mandate for such a drastic change, but I was told by our UK posters here that it was part of the deal for the Tory Government when it was elected.
As a matter of how it affects my life, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other of Leave v. Remain. I do think it is fascinating to follow UK politics because my country and my state, as well as your country and your province have both gained our traditions and common law from the UK, and it is interesting to see how we have parted ways, both from each other and from the UK.
But I do think it is fundamentally unfair that if any government says, we want position “not Y”, but we will let you silly fools vote for Y, and then to the government’s shock Y passes, the government should not in fairness get to say that the vote was only a practice and that we will keep voting until we get “not Y.” And once we get “not Y” we stop voting.
Are there polls showing how a new referendum would go? It may be a few days too early, granted.
Yes, of course but that would be point blank public rescinding the results of the referendum. That’s why I said “package”. There needs to be political cover for all sides and some nebulous extension could do that. All the serious people want to kick the can down the road, so what’s the fig leaf for a super long kick?
I understand your position here and it is a principled one. As presented, I tend to agree: in a democracy, you don’t get a second bite at the same apple. If the Cameron government had turned around after the last referendum and said, “Um, whoops! That’s not what we intended,” and called for a re-vote, then what you’re saying here would be absolutely true and I doubt many (or any) would disagree. I think what others in this thread have been trying to articulate is that that is not where the UK is now. It’s been 2.5 years since that referendum vote. A lot has been learned. New information is available. There is different “leadership” now (I use that term loosely).
It’s not the same apple.
I personally think a new referendum with more specific questions based on the current situation, as others have already suggested, would not qualify as a “re-vote.”
Leave lied and cheated. Massively and brazenly, on a level unknown before in British politics. So arguing about ‘unfair’ is moot. Remain were not given a fair chance in 2016, because Leave never engaged with Remain. They played the demagogue.
Look: in 2016, we considered the merits of opening a door. Remain said we should not open the door, because beyond it is nothing but misery. Leave said beyond the door were untold riches and we just have to open the door to get to them. We opted to open the door. It turns out beyond the door is a gaping chasm with bloody spikes at the bottom. For two years, the government has been trying to build a bridge across, but there’s no material in existence strong enough to withstand the stress and pressure, and it’s clear attempting to cross will mean many people will slip off, fall, and die. And we can see the other side - it’s barren and lifeless, unlike what Leave said was there.
If we cancel Brexit, we close the door, until a workable plan to cross that chasm has been formed, and with the understanding that we will be knowingly going to a barren wasteland.
Finally, Ultra, it’s rich saying it’s wrong to have as many votes until you get the result you want when that’s what leading Leave politicians were advocating before the referendum. The moment they won, they shut up.
They’d cease to be a Tory MP, losing the party whip. They’d remain an MP though - at least until the next election - as they are still the elected member for their constituency.
Veering off-topic slightly, but it isn’t as straightforward as you might think for a living MP to cease being one in the absence of a fresh election.
Being declared bankrupt is one way, as is being sentenced to prison for more than a year - a shorter prison sentence is AOK apparently.
If an MP wants to just resign, well, technically they can’t. They have to apply for one of two jobs instead: Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. These are two ancient positions that nowadays carry no responsibilities, but crucially they are nominally paid offices of the Crown, and an MP taking one of those positions means an automatic disqualification.
Some parts of parliamentary procedure have yet to emerge blinking into the 18th century, never mind the 21st…
If nothing else, some old bigots will have died and two-years-worth of teenagers have become enfranchised.
You have managed to hijack this into your problems with school bonds, closing public swimming pools, and Trump’s wall proposal. Those are very different things in nature as well as in scale. You’re not British, but you’re going by what the British press say. (Granted, I’m in the same boat, being a Yank.) Well, the British press are notoriously awful. I am sorry I diluted my point by compulsively responding to you. I mistook you for a concerned Brit.
So, let me bring it back to this:
[paraphrased from post 69]
**If Leave:
[ul]
[li]The UK will lose Scotland.[/li][li]The UK *will *lose Northern Ireland.[/li][li]Britain will go through an immediate economic contraction.[/li][li]The Empire will *not *bring Canada, Australia, & America back into the fold.[/li][/ul]
There will just be a broken, bleeding Kingdom of Britain, and it might well end up with a right-wing coup or a civil war, because economic contraction does that.
With that information, are you still voting Leave? Nah, son.**
Prime Minister May knows this. Far from trying to ram Remain down the public gullet, she is respecting democracy, even as it is dangerous to Britain. And for her trouble, she will lose Scotland, she will lose Northern Ireland, & Britain will go into some kind of depression. That is a recipe for war. I thought it would be a fascist coup in Britain and a civil war, but it could even be war on a continental scale, because the EU will take a hit as well.
I wish too.
That is pretty much how I see it - and with little help from the UK press. Leave will be a disaster that will probably break up the United Kingdom. It already looks as if it will be a hard Brexit, a very hard Brexit, and with no K-Jel. Remain is only possible if there is another referendum and the vote goes the other way. Doing that will require some serious PR work by the Remainers to counter the fake news of Johnson and Farage. Many of the Leavers won’t change their minds because they are fixed into their mindset and logic cannot penetrate. Funny, but some people say the same applies in Catalonia.
In the best case, the second Brexit referendum is won by a convincing margin (55% or more) and the UK goes to Brussels and says it wants the EU to get its house in order and the failed Brexit should be seen as a last chance warning. But even in the best case the country will be split down the middle and the leavers will moan for decades to come that “we wuz robbed”. But will it be the best case?
The referendum was touted as “only advisory”. Sudenly it became mandatory.
Too true. Labour and Corbyn won’t commit to anything. Evidently all the parties think that being pro-Remain is political death, so they make vaguely pro-Leave noises and leave the whole mess in Theresa May’s lap. Said damsel is no Maggie Thatcher - although I wonder whether Iron Knickers could have done better in such a situation - and is basically doing an impersonation of HRH, aka Mrs. Windsor, and just making polite small talk. Leadership? Commitment? Not since or during Cameron’s term.
I declare this the quote of the week.
The first problem with any referendum is that people must vote on the issue and no just use it as a chance to kick the government in the shins. The second problem is that it is extremely difficult to undo a referendum that initiated something that turned out to be a disaster. A government decision can be overturned by the next government, but it can take decades for a referendum decision to be remedied because, natch, everybody voted for it.
So, assuming that the UK leaves the EU, and shortly afterwards Scotland leaves the UK, and Scotland then asks for EU membership. Is anything known about the EU’s plans for that situation? Is it just the same as any other country asking to join (and, how hard is that)? Would they be likely to fast-track them in any way? Does seniority of membership matter in any way, and if so, would Scotland be counted as having the former UK’s seniority?
Wouldn’t the sticking point be the Pound versus the Euro? Does Scotland want to adopt the Euro?
Also Schengen, and there’s rules around national finances that a newly-independent Scotland might struggle to meet.
Not really, but I think that could be finessed. Sweden has been committed to joining the Euro since 1994, and I’m sure they’ll be getting right onto that any day now. 
Well, clearly it’s possible to be in the EU without using the Euro, as evidenced by pre-mess UK. But I’m sure that the EU would want a new member to use the Euro, anyway, and might be able to leverage that.
On the other hand, a newly-independent Scotland would need to establish a new currency, anyway: Even if they declare they’re using the Scottish Pound, which starts off at the same value as the English Pound, it still won’t be the same currency. Given that, I’d think that they might as well adopt the Euro.
The entry criterion is a commitment to adopt the Euro, not adoption itself. See also: the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland, and from an earlier wave of entrants the afore-mentioned Sweden.
The UK and Denmark, as existing members when the Euro was introduced, specifically negotiated opt-outs. It’s possible that Scotland could claim inheritance of the UK opt-out, I guess.