I can understand the disregard for non voters when it comes to a general election - some people do not vote simply because there is no party which they have more than about 50% agreement with, also the result can be changed in 5 years time. Some people are also non voters in some elections but not in others. But a straightforward yes/no referendum, with a result which could be with us for decades to come ? This one should have been compulsory - because it affects everybody in as much as that it changes the legal status of all of us.
Also had the vote gone the other way would the Brexiteers have been allowed anywhere near a law court to make a legal challenge to the way the government was handling re- or fuller integration? Yes of course they would. Everyone has the right to appeal to the courts for justice. Although the headlines suggested that it was one or two wealthy individuals who brought the cases, there were thousands of people who contributed to the legal costs through crowd funding.
If the result of the referendum had gone the other way there would have been no complaint about the rules or system from the remoaners. The response has been typical of the methods of the undemocratic EU Eurocrats, keep voting until the 'correct' result is obtained.
Can you not consider the principle? We talk about a two tier system providing checks and balances. The way this decision is proceeding there appear to be no checks and balances. Ok when the vote goes your way but raising real concerns when not. If we are to have referenda again then our parliament need to give due consideration to how they sit in our constitutional system.
The outcome of the clear decision of the referendum has been scrutinised and will continue to be scrutinised in both Houses of Parliament culminating in a vote on the negotiated outcome. Following long held tradition, parliament, especially the Lords, is there to improve bills not drastically change them. The present UK government gave ample notice in its manifesto of its desire to hold a referendum and laterly gave warnings of the consequences of a yes vote. It was clear the majority of voters were concerned about uncontrolled immigration and sovereignty. Much of the 'remainers' rhetoric is disingenuous when stating they 'respect the will of the people' and just want to ensure a 'soft Brexit', which has catigorically been ruled out by the EU. They simply want to disregard the vote as it does not suit them. This is a dangerous and anti democratic path. Just because the EU has ignored referendums in the past does not make it a respectable or acceptable policy. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to offer the U.K citizens a direct vote on a most important subject, the result should be respected.
I like a number of things about this action. First it is crowd funded as OFH says so is not just the likes of Rupert Murdoch pushing his views. Secondly it goes to the core of human rights - can a country have it's history changed and be taken down a path that not even the supporters had a clue about - with no chance of return. Thirdly it reminds those who like democracy that a narrow decision by just over a million people out of a population of over 60 million is not "clear and decisive" but narrow and leaves the nearly 50 million who did not vote leave with rights. Fourth it reminds us that in a democracy you have a right to change your mind if circumstances change. Fifth it reminds us that the EU respects human rights - something that we may see less of if we exit. Finally it would enable us to remain in the EU if we did change our minds and let our EU partners realise that the UK is still fundamentally democratic and friendly towards them and were taken down a path we did not want by anti EU moguls.
The referendum resulted in a very high turnout with over 17 million people voting to leave the EU. Surveys have assertained that the main reasons to reject the EU were immigration and sovereignty. There was ample debate and sufficient information freely available for the electorate to come to a sensible decision, which they did. To preserve the UK' s reputation as a bastion of democracy the referendum result must be upheld. Fortunately there are enough decent parliamentarians to recognise the instruction from the people. We don't need any dictatorial shenanigans from Brussels or from within.
Another excellent outcome should the "Irish" case win is that it will force the government to actually negotiate properly. As things stand they need do nothing as we are forced to leave whatever the terms. However if it is reversible the government will need to gain acceptable terms for the British people as a whole. Surely even the most ardent brexiter would want that. Who would not want negotiations to be as beneficial as possible? At the end of two years democracy would again swing into action. We would be faced with a proper choice knowing the terms on which we would leave if we still want to. Again why would a brexiter not want the people to be able to decide whether to stay or go based on real terms and deals and not on guesses and forecasts? The people could make clear to their MPs how to vote to implement the fully informed will of the people. Brexiters keep claiming that is what they want. Surely none would prefer an outcome based on the unknow in 2016 against the known in 2019. A win win for everyone.
As far as the referendum was concerned the result was leaving the EU. There was no ambiguity over the results of negotiation, it was clear Brexit means Brexit. The majority of the UK understands that, even the remainers.There was never a mention of the possibility of a rejection of any deal in parliament. At this stage I'm sure the rest of the EU would like us to finally leave as they have always viewed us as a reluctant member. We all hope the UK government can negotiate the best deal possible, but U.K. Businesses need certaincy not everlasting negotiations which is in nobody's interest.
One other thing of course that in hindsight was good is that the government went out of their way to stress that the referendum result was only advisory - not at all binding. This of course means that if the EU upholds the "Irish" position the people can finally say what they really want as we all know that Theresa May's Brexit means Brexit is meaningless whereas a result of a "best" negotiation is a chance for everyone to say what they actually want between two certain alternatives. Of course if the people come to realise how far they were lied to in inducing a leave vote they will vote to stay by a massive majority. That will mean we do not need the five or ten years uncertainty that would result from an actual brexit. Another great outcome.
This thing has 2 sides to it Leo. If Britain thinks it can activate Article 50, and then go back on it at a later date, with or without the agreement of the rest of the Union, then it makes the activation of the article more certain. This is like playing poker - by the time Britain actually has made up its mind 'not to jump ship', there would have been a year (or maybe more) of uncertainty in between - and the EU. is expected to wait patiently for Britain to decide like a petulant prima donna. As I see it there are several possibilities. 1. Parliament votes against the activation of Article 50. (Highly unlikely, but could still happen). 2. The House of Lords blocks it. (They don't have to worry about their seats, but this would constitute a constitutional nightmare). 3. The Queen refuses to counter sign it (The Monarchy hasn't done this for over 200 years - but, if the continuation of the UK. was threatened, who knows?). 4. Scotland and N.Ireland still have a role to play - Scotland can play this right down to the wire, and the only way to force it through is to annul the Devolution Act - which would trigger the break up of the UK. This scenario would give us a good enough excuse for a second EU. referendum (because circumstances had changed sufficiently) - so the question on the new referendum would be - 'Do you want to leave the EU. and break up the UK' ? 5. The EU. referendum result is challenged and found to be invalid (maybe because of the disenfranchised ex. pats for example). 6. Article 50 is actually activated - and then the fun starts. Britain finally realizes that it is not a game of poker, and that there is no new deal on offer, and that the EU. cannot be held to ransom in this way. 7. They delay the activation of Article 50 - ostensibly to wait on election results in Europe, but really in the hope that some other circumstances change which would justify either a second referendum, or just 'forgetting the whole thing'. 8. The EU. falls apart in the meantime and Brexit isn't necessary. 9. It actually happens and Britain wakes up outside of the EU. trying to get back in, and being placed on a waiting list behind Turkey. 10. Britain realizes that there is nothing to be gained from Article 50, and leaves without it. This would actually sour relations with the EU. for quite some time, but would not be illegal.
On those - my thoughts only - 1 Not going to happen - MPs have made this clear 2 Not going to happen - suicide for the Lords - and their power is only ever to delay. 3 Not going to happen - the Queen is a constitutional monarch 4 Not going to happen - Scots have no power on this issue. No need to annul the devolution Act. Scots anti exit as at present. 5 No sign of that legal challenge 6 This will happen. Article 50 will be triggered. 7 Not going to happen. Tories will not allow it. Labour will not support it. 8 Not going to happen - the EU is fine - UK is not such a big deal. In the EU there is tiny support for any other Exit 9 Depends on reversibility. If no reversibilty we will exit - but hardly anyone would advocate applying as a new member. We go alone 10 Not going to happen. Our worldwide reputation would suffer - nobody of any authority has mooted this. So for me - we will trigger Article 50. If it is irreversible we will leave with a horrible deal. If it is reversible we will find the people choose to withdraw our resignation.
I forgot scenario 11 and 12 Leo. 11. We go through with it and end up with a relationship like Norway ie. We have to abide by EU. rules, freedom of movement etc. but have no voting rights. Ukip would huff and puff at this (SH as well), but it would, technically, be Brexit. 12. We have a hard Brexit and have to sell our souls and our sovereignty on the World market - ie. we become an off shore fracking island for the USA. and have Chinese controlled nuclear power. 13. We disappear under the waves behind a shroud of mist. Don't under estimate Scotland Leo. Agriculture, and Law both come under 'devolved issues' - to change those forcefully would involve tearing up what powers Hollyrood has. If it comes to a straightforward case that Brexit is coupled with the break up of the UK. then this would be sufficient reason to justify a second referendum. But the positive side is that Europe is not going away - it will remain only an hours journey from St. Pancras and will always be closer than Washington DC. London to Brussels on the train is actually quicker than London to Stoke on Trent.
Looks like you forgot 13 as well - unlucky? 11 I don't think the Norway model has any backers. Pretty dreadful deal - maybe the worst of all worlds. 12 This is where I expect us to end. It is the end point of your option 6. The EU will not offer us any favours - we will not compromise on people movement in an unrestricted guise - we may have some agreed tariffs with the EU and some concessions on movement but not as part of the single market. 13 Yes - unlucky I do not think Scotland will be able to rely on devolution to overturn the end of an agreement that they only entered as part of the UK. Nobody will tear up Holyrood's powers and the press will trumpet it as giving Scotland their own control of fisheries and agriculture. They will be given a handsome cash bribe by England too. We will then see the Scottish appetite for going it alone.
The risk with referendums, as Margaret Thatcher used to say, is that they become a device for demagogues and dictators: the people have spoken so now they must be silent ever more. The point about liberal democracy is that citizens are offered a chance to change their minds. Financial Times
The Financial Times is currently the remoaners manual. The dictators they are referring to are obviously the Eurocrats that allow referendums but ignore the result if it does not suit their needs. It must be distressing for the fiddling misguided fools for them to be thwarted by a member country that actually respects democracy and will not be bullied.
No. Do you want the best of three, maybe five, until you get the result you want? It smacks of shady Eurocrat methods, ignore the electorate.
But what if the electorate changes its mind? It would be undemocratic to ignore the electorate then, wouldn't it?
Wise Prime Ministers, if they offer referendums at all, offer the populace the choice between something which they (the Government) want and maintaining the status quo. That way the government does not have to carry through something which they don't want, which has no plan, and where all the main protagonists have disappeared from the scene. This must have been the biggest gaff ever made by a British PM, and why ? Because he got the wind up about a couple of his MPs defecting to Ukip. What we now need is less 'fundamentalism', fewer lawyers, and more common sense. We do not need permanent soundbites such as 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'the people's will must be obeyed. The people's will would have lead to appeasement in 1939, it would have lead to the reinstatement of the death penalty. The 'People's Will' is always changing. There would be nothing undemocratic about asking the people for a second opinion under such circumstances as these - about something which we cannot reverse in 5 years (as with a general election). Judges the World over ask juries to go back and reconsider their verdicts - do we call this undemocratic ? We need less dogma and more common sense - we elect politicians to make the decisions which they think are the best ones for this country.
