The UK government has quite rightly rejected a petition calling for a second referendum saying the decision must be respected. In its official response to signatories the foreign office said the law which set the rules for the referendum did not specify minimum conditions on turnout or margin of victory. It added that the referendum was 'one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.
Yes ..some posters on this thread have intimated that Remainers are 'wingeing' by reflecting critically on what has emerged.....
It may have been one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history, but it will also probably be one of the last. What you do not seem to realise is that it is democratically unacceptable for Scotland (and N. Ireland) to be dragged out of the EU. against their will. Did people vote consciously for the end of Britain, no they didn't and this is enough reason to expect a second referendum at some stage. Which PM. is going to want to be the one that triggers the break up of the UK. ? The Party that did this would be in the political wilderness for many years afterwards. I hope you have a new flag ready because the union jack, which so many of the Brexiters were proudly waving, may soon become history as a result of their actions.
I don't want to leave but I'm not sure how a democracy can function if some parts of it refuse to accept the decision of the majority, Is the decision democratically unacceptable for all regions which opposed it? It's hard to see how a national referendum can have any purpose if such exceptions can negate the result.
What if, just as a matter of interest, the public decided by referendum to go to war with Russia? The public may dislike the Russians, for whatever reason. Isn't there a point when common sense requires Parliament, fairly elected representatives of the people, to step in and make the correct decision in the interests of the country - even if there is a majority? After all, it's only that sort of common sense that has saved us from reintroducing the death penalty - a popular but stupid idea.
For the majority, the correct decision has been made. There are definitely decisions that would never be put to the country, war with Russia for example
I wasn't suggesting it could be real, H. If something is clearly bad for the country, do we expect our elected MPs to step in? What sort of mess would we get in if everything were conducted by opinion poll?
DUH! That is why the referendum was debated for ages in parliament and amended so as to be fit to be put before the nation. Parliament is very selective which issues it deems suitable for decision by referendum, this was one. We rightly expect our MP's to respect THEIR will.
In the hypothetical event that that happened, i'm sure MPs would find a way to worm their way out of a situation but for MPs to assume that just because they are elected, they are the ones that can make all the decisions, regardless of the will of the people, shows the arrogance that certainly some of them have sadly, and shows just how out of touch they are. The country has, for many years, stood back and watched MPs get on with making their decisions for them. There are some issues which are too big and too important to the masses to stand by and watch. Rarely, the people have showed their displeasure, by marches, riots, etc. But this time, the MPs made the decision to ask them in a democratic way. If Parliament thought at that time that the correct decision was to ask the people, they can't then say they don't like the response, and ignore it, they'd have a riot beyond any known in recent history on their hands. So, coming back to your question Andy! lol...if something is clearly bad for the country, ie, going to war with Russia, we would all expect MPs to make the right decision, and that would obviously be to not ask the country in the first place but to do what they thought was right. Once they put the question to the country, they must stick to the decision of the country imo.
A slim majority - and the result of deliberate lies - not forecasts as Remain used which are always just forecasts -but outright lies on the £350m per week and Turkey "about to join the EU". Why should we make an irreversible decision based on lies that fooled 37.5% of the population - especially when 16 to 18 year old and people living abroad were denied a legitmate vote. Brexiters have no answer on fairness - just the repetition of "it's all over" If a general election returned a new government committed to Remain I bet Brexiters would whinge forever
We live in a representative democracy - it is the duty not just the right of MPs to make decisions not blindly act as sheep
This morning the deputy Prime Minister at the time we went into Iraq has come out and said that at the time he was not shown sufficient information at cabinet meetings. The government kept papers back from even ministers, showing how even people in high office can be manipulated. It is fine if you believe that the public were given sufficient truthful information about the effects of Brexit, but when you see that the leader of the leave campaign was telling people that we could remain in the single market without accepting free movement of people, then you have to wonder have the population been manipulated in the same way that Prescott was. Democracy suffered as a result of that war. People now know that you shouldn't believe what even the Prime Minister of the day was saying. Democracy has suffered again as it has been shown how many of the promises made by elected politicians were never going to happen. Until we get MPs who as a whole are working for the nation rather than their own ambitions, then the system will continue to fail.
I don't think we should've been asked this in the first place, particularly given how lacking in truth the evidence was, probably from both sides. If there was a judicial inquiry into it, where anybody voting had to read the report, I'd accept us leaving. But nobody would read it and we'd be back to generalised ignorant voting (perhaps from both sides) without truly weighing up the real evidence. That for me is where elected professional lawmakers come in and do that for us. The opinion polls are always in favour of capital punishment, but these elected lawmakers (from the left and right) have weighed up the evidence and saved us from that. The point about Russia was just plucked from the air. What if a referendum returned that we all pay 1% tax? Popular, yes, in the interests of the country, no. Sometimes they have to step up and do the unpopular - it's what we pay them for. So, all that remains, imho, is to decide whether this matter is serious enough for them to step in. I think it is.
IMO democracy as applied in a yes-no type voting system is flawed.... there is no place for moderation .... and in this case no clear facts, detail or nuances What gets me is that BoJo himself was against Brexit a few months back... and after a soul-searching overnight apparently came out for Brexit and then campaigned hard and fast for it..... just doesn't stack up for me.........
I think most MPs are frightened to say what they think.... like the story of the emperors new clothes are we all going headlong into the wilderness like lemmings? "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that they don't see any suit of clothes until a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"
Our representative MP's freely made a decision to have a referendum which they were intelligent enough to realise that the decision may go against their collected preferred view. They have fully accepted the will of the people, some others are trying to usurp democracy.
What total piffle. You make it sound as if all the MPs and Lords were in favour of it, when if you bothered to read the debates that were held in both chambers you would know that nothing could be further from the truth. You might try to argue that 16-17 were denied a vote on democratic grounds, but the fact is that it was not, but “Because it would involve a charge on public funds”. So the cost is more important than democracy?
