Yeh, yeh. All of this is just because I observed that it isn't democratic to throw out the results of an election for the reason that the losing side is upset that it lost and so would like to have a "do over."
Such an observation really shouldn't be the occasion for launching a big debate.
The debate is about Brexit. Not an election, a referendum, which no-one is legally bound to act on. Our parliamentary system was set up to prevent decision making power resting in one person's hands, and also to ensure that all interests were properly considered and represented. Brexiteers make up less than 25% of the UK population, but Brexit would have a serious impact not only on UK citizens but also have repercussions for many others. Not a decision to be taken lightly, and not on the basis of a few confused notions about English sovereignty and the lining of a few pockets.
Yeh, yeh. All of this is just because I observed that it isn't democratic to throw out the results of an election for the reason that the losing side is upset that it lost and so would like to have a "do over."
Such an observation really shouldn't be the occasion for launching a big debate.
The thing is a second referendum need not be a throwing out the result, but a clarification. The how of Brexit was left to parliament, and a that parliament has failed, a no deal according to all evidence is truest bad for the UKs economy, jobs etc. Might be great for the USA in a one sided trade deal but not for us.
There is a good democratic case for a second referendum, even if it’s on a deal or no deal basis. Personally I think it should include a revoke article 51 option.
Remember referendums in the uk are purely advisory, and clearly parliament needs more advice.