Item — HN Reader

> Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum?

You say that, (Even if it is a joke) but here in the UK, this is exactly the same as the 'People's Vote' that gives the final say to the people on how the Brexit process should progress, despite the UK already voting leave in 2016. Democracy doesn't care on how 'close' the result was, the people voted to leave and that should be respected.

This vote is an instruction from the electorate for parliament to deliver the referendum result and in anyway reversing it, undermines the democratic process. When the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 happened, they accepted the result to remain and that was that.

If another referendum goes through and it was leave again, how many times do you need to accept the result? 2? 6? or 19? You might as well roll an unfair dice if you want to hold another referendum.

5 comments

From a legal standpoint :

- the referendum was an advisory, non-binding one.

- the electoral commission has found the Vote Leave campaign in breach of electoral law and referred them to the police.

From a moral one :

- Nearly every single argument the Leave side had put forward has been shown to be a lie.

- Foreign interference.

- Every single opinion poll in the past two years has shown that people had changed their mind and would now vote Remain.

> This vote is an instruction from the electorate

Since sovereignty is often put forward as a reason to leave the EU do you not see the irony in that statement?

It was an 'advisory referendum' according to the act of parliament that instituted it. Referendums cannot be binding on parliament in the UK, or parliament would not be sovereign any more!

> When the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 happened, they accepted the result to remain and that was that.

Well no they didn't. 'They', meaning the people of Scotland I presume, elected the Scottish National Party to 56 of the 59 seats available to Scottish MPs in the election 2 years later. The SNP actively campaign to leave the UK. Democracy is not an event, it is a process.

There will most likely be another Scottish independence vote at some point, especially if Brexit happens. Referendums won by a tiny margin do not settle an issue. They're not final for the same reason that elections aren't final.

As Nigel Farage famously put it (when he still thought his side would lose) : "A 52-48 result would be unfinished business by a long way"

> how many times do you need to accept the result? 2? 6? or 19?

Well, the UK votes on the government at least every 5 years. Do you think that that is undemocratic? Should everyone just say 'we'd be ignoring the will of the people if we just kept voting until we got the right answer'.

And after all, there was a referendum in 1975 on joining the EEC, but now brexiteers seem to want out of it. Are they denying the will of the people?

That seems like the kind of argument only someone who is scared that they no longer hold a majority opinion might make.

I'd say 2 is a good number. They have seen the potential consequences a lot better (if this assumption proves to be false, then 1 is a good number, you can test it by amount of people that feel greatly more knowledgeable about this topic), therefore, they have better knowledge to vote.