Inertia and party loyalty? The people who changed their vote intended to send a message, the ones who voted as usual may not have done.
I suspect a good share of UKIP’s vote was people who weren’t paying attention and didn’t realise there was a new Brexit party.
Actually they’re not and can be summed up in one word: Thatcher.
You really have a thing for simplistic, one-word answers, don’t you ? Brexit, Thatcher…
Occam’s Razor.
Anyway, I suppose I have to remind people yet again that Brexit is a vote I respect. If you think I like Brexit, please link to the posts I’ve made extolling the virtues of Brexit.
I value democracy over EU membership. Unlike - it seems - many here, who seem happy with democracy only when the votes go their way.
Do you only value a democratic vote if it’s only performed once? The Brexit referendum was three years ago; here in the US, a Congresscritter elected in that year would have already served one term and been either sent home or re-elected. I understand that the EP elections you just had aren’t a second referendum, but the fact that Remainer parties won a majority over Leave parties certainly suggests that the British electorate may have changed its mind on Brexit, no?
You haven’t successfully demonstrated how Remaining would be antithetical to a representative democracy system. Direct democracy, sure. But the UK isn’t a direct democracy.
I don’t need to.
Tell that to those who voted in the Scottish independence referendum.
The UK isn’t a direct democracy.
You seem to be the only Brexiter left around here, so would you mind answering my question? Does the election of a large group of MEPs from Eurosceptic parties promising reform change your view of Brexit at all?
The Brexit vote was a non-binding advisory referendum. At best it obliged Parliament to consider Brexit and pursue it if feasible. It did not require the UK to leave at any cost, and it doesn’t “violate democracy” if Parliament ultimately decides to postpone or abandon Brexit if pursuing it in the short-term would negatively impact the country.
The reason so much of the Leave argument gets reduced to “Leave means Leave, end of” is because it allows supporters the Leave campaign to pretend that it’s a simple situation instead of an incredibly complex one with no easy solution and potentially (and literally) disastrous consequences if we get it wrong. Which is also the reason that Parliament and the country are so fundamentally divided.
Voters are allowed to change their opinions. That’s why there are general elections every few years with different results. If it seems that public opinion has shifted, there’s nothing wrong with holding another referendum about anything.
If the result of the referendum had been Remain, I can guarantee that Brexiters would now be calling for another referendum. The objections have nothing to do with principle, it’s only about winning at any cost. Likewise, if Brexiters thought that they would win another referendum by a greater margin, they would not be objecting to it. They are objecting only because they know that public opinion has changed, and they fear that they will lose by a significant margin.
In the case of Scottish independence, if the SNP thought they could win another referendum, they would be fully entitled to hold one. But they know that opinion has not shifted, so there would be no point.
Brexiters need to be honest with themselves and others about their motives for not wanting another referendum. It has absolutely nothing to do with principle. The “will of the people” is not frozen in time.
“This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
In any case the “will of the people” in 2016 was
Leave 37.4%
Remain 34.7%
Did Not Vote: 27.9%
Whereas in the European Parliament election results, it was
Did Not Vote: 63%
Firmly Remain: 15%
Hard Brexit: 14%
Fudge It Somehow: 12%
Not entirely overwhelming in either case.
In the end, someone has to take an actual decision based on their perception of what is in the best interests of as many people as possible. Which is rather the point of representative, rather than plebiscitary, democracy.
They did try to implement it, but it was not practically possible. The referendum is not legally binding. i.e. You can’t sue the government in court for not implementing it.
“. . . which of course means we must allow you to decide whether you like the form of Brexit which it is proposed to implement. To be true to our earlier promise, we must hold a referendum so that you can decide what we are to do.”
I’d be fine with a 2nd referendum, provided remain wasn’t on the ballot.
You seem to conceive of a referendum as a mechanism for depriving the people of their rights. Why should the people not have a right to choose to remain, if that is what they wish to do?
We’ve done that one.
What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid that other people have changed their minds and you can no longer get your way? That’s pretty weak and useless.
You should be glad if Brexit never happens. Then you can keep your illusions and have something to whine and moan about for the rest of your life, rather than being associated with a disaster.
Why are you so keen to deny democracy? Which other democratic results should we ignore?
It was well-known that Brexit would take time. For starters there’s a 2 year clock on the invocation of Article 50. Were we a decade on you might have a point but we aren’t so you don’t.