Or Parliament rejects all or parts of the agreement, if it only approves it's a rubber stamp (unlikely I suspect because the default would be the hard Brexit that it seems very few want). Very interesting 'will of the people' debate to be had in that situation. Perhaps we should have a referendum on it.
If Parliament were particularly unhappy about a part of the proposed deal, it could send the government back with fresh proposals - just as the European Parliament could do with the Brussels men. There may be batting back and forward which is why temporary arrangements may be advisable to allow time for this
We had more choices in our last JFH poll then the referendum, which is why we have the farce now. This should really have been done by a political party in a manifesto, I.e leave the single market, leave the custom union, stay in europol or whatever. We'll end up with a fudge with most Leavers thinking it's a sell out and remainers thinking it's gone too far - and something no one voted for
Richmond is probably the most affluent constituency in the country, not really an ideal barometer of national feeling...
agree Soop, tell that to the Liberals who claim masses of Brexiters are now regretting voting leave. This Thursday by-election in Sleaford, Lincs. will give a more accurate reading of what the country's feeling is on the issue
Sleaford is about as representative as Richmond. What will be interesting there is the Tory share of the vote (they should win easily) and, if it falls, whether Lib Dems or UKIP, or both, gain. To get a really representative view we need a general election, which would also handily give whoever wins a mandate to do what they want with the Brexit negotiations.
It appears that it was traditionally conservative voters who backed the Green candidate to victory in the Austrian presidential election over his far right opponent. Nice one, a little ray of hope.
Did anyone truly know what they were voting for (either way)? I think we should have a say in what sort of Brexit happens.
No. The vote was exceptionally vague and probably shouldn't have been decided by 'the people' at all. I'm not advocating another in/out referendum but people should be able to express what they consider the priority of Brexit to be. I don't like that it's been hijacked as a mandate to villify immigrants.
The Governmentment is currently getting a second vote by the Justices in our legal system. So why not the people? Ireland did it more than once Finglas reminded us, why not us? It would also help people who voted or thought of voting Leave, if they were given much clearer ideas of all of what that really means, in another vote.
Why limit it to two? If Remainers don't get the answer they want the second time, they may want to go for a third
Why indeed? It obviously takes time for the Government to work out what they want to do, let alone explain that to the voters, and get the correct reply.
The easiest way to gauge public opinion and give your government a clear mandate on how you wish to proceed is to have a general election. The electorate can decide who they want to represent them in the next parliament and you might even get a legitimately elected PM. The victors in the Italian referendum called for an immediate general election. I think it would do the UK good to have one and let the people have their say.
