Why would it, if a party campaigned on it as a key part of their manifesto, and won office on this basis?
Specghetti Savers?Doh! Too much Chianti with my Sunday lunch again! Must go to the Italian equivalent of Specsavers Specsavers!
Poll I saw which included 'don't knows' was 58:31 for rejoining. You might ask why the political parties in general don't want to discuss this, other than some rather weak LibDem mentions.
Obviously because there are c.15 million people out there who voted Leave, and even if a sizeable number have changed their mind, that's still a lot of people. Not only that, but those people are (a) generally in the older demographic who are more likely to vote, and (b) in a lot of marginal constituencies (i.e. the Red Wall).
Ok, I should have known Ronald was defeated as I knew his son Mike, a real ale campaigner like me.
It wouldn't. Farage (and his rabble) and the swivel-eyed-loon wing of the Tory party would never have just accepted it. They'd have picked some other pretext for another referendum until they got the result they wanted, much as the SNP do in Scotland.
It wouldn't as Nigel Farage made clear when he thought he had lost the vote. There would have remained a constant campaign by UKIP and the ERG to push for Brexit given such a very small margin of defeat in the same way we have seen the SNP continue to push for independence in Scotland despite losing by a larger margin.
In that case, the will of the people would be clear. No problem with it.
The problem with any referendum in this country is there are nowhere enough regulations in connection with them, regarding the margin of victory required, funding laws, among other things. Switzerland is known for having referendums on almost everything they want to pursue, so have all these laws regulating them. Our general elections on the other hand do have more rules and regulations governing them; at the very least referendum ones should be brought up to the same standard.In that case, the will of the people would be clear. No problem with it.
Though you can use the same argument for literally any policy. If a party is elected to Government on a policy of say, zero immigration, then that is what that government should enact.
As for the harm, just imagine for a moment that the result had gone the other way... but then a party came into government a few years down the line who were elected on a policy of leaving the EU- no referendum, just unilateral withdrawal. Yes, that party would have a democratic mandate to do so. But the fact that there was a referendum on that issue, to me elevates it above a simple manifesto pledge, such that a reversal of that policy should be subject to a second referendum. Therefore in the real world, a move to rejoin should be subject to a referendum too.
In any case, any party putting a policy of rejoining (or holding a referendum on doing so) front and centre would be either brave or stupid* based on my admittedly subjective exposure to the opinions of others out in the real world. Even the remainers don't seem keen on going through the whole messy business again.
If it were to happen I think many on both sides (remain/leave, for avoidance of doubt) would become further disillusioned with politics in general, so turnouts would take a hit over the coming years. A lack of faith in democracy also tends to push those who don't abstain to the extremes.
*= come to think of it, given the way the Conservative campaign is going I wouldn't be surprised if Rishi announces that on his next awkward press conference at a rubber chicken factory... I wonder how many Labour supporters on here would "hold their nose and vote Tory"?
The Brexit Referendum was conducted under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is the same legislation that general elections are held.
....plus, as things stand at the moment - as an aspirant state - the UK would have to commit to scrapping the Pound Sterling and adopting the Euro.
Seems like a reasonable time to do it, now they're basically at parity
Really? When I checked earlier today it was 1.18 Euro to the Pound!
Then that legislation needs toughening up regardless.
Agree with this. Having got "their fingers burned" by allowing us in and all the trouble the UK caused, the EU will think very hard about letting us back in. We are out now and that's it. The minimum we can wait for a new referendum is a generation so there is a new set of the population to ask.
We could have another referendum this year if the political will is there. The demographic has changed since 2016. Older voters deceased, new younger voters on the electoral roll too. No need to wait for a generation.
Yes....but what would be the point? As stated above, the EU would be most unlikely to let us back in at this juncture....and I speak as an ardent remainer.
Big, but it's baked-in now, he's going to get 3 seats or so, and he's going to ensure that the Conservatives lose a lot of seats to Labour & LibDem.
They will if they think there's a possibility (even a very slim possibility) that a decade or two after re joining the EU, the UK then demands Brexit version 2. Unless there is overwhelming public support (something like two thirds of the electorate in favour of EU membership), I don't think the EU will want us back.
I find the comparison to Partygate to be quite interesting. It's quite a similar line to what was going on then "We've got to wait for the Sue Gray report" has become "The matter is being investigated by the gambling commission so we can't do anything until it reports".
exactly - if I were under investigation by the gambling commission I would be suspended from work pending the outcome. That does not prejudice the investigation or suggest guilt it is simple a reflection of the potential serious nature of the issue.
Which is, of course, what the police did to the officer who is implicated in the whole affair, one might wonder why should Tory party members/candidates be any different...
how dare you compare Tories to mere plebs!
