Is the UK legally prevented from having another referendum on Brexit?
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
1
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago
add a comment |
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?
united-kingdom brexit
united-kingdom brexit
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
edited 5 mins ago
JBentley
29047
29047
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
asked 2 hours ago
MocasMocas
1092
1092
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
1
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago
add a comment |
4
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
1
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago
4
4
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
1
1
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
add a comment |
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38969%2fis-the-uk-legally-prevented-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
add a comment |
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
add a comment |
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
answered 2 hours ago
ouflakouflak
911410
911410
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
add a comment |
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
– John Dallman
1 hour ago
4
4
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
– Paul Johnson
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
– ouflak
1 hour ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
+1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
– JBentley
34 mins ago
add a comment |
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.
Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.
If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).
In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.
In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
answered 1 hour ago
FlaterFlater
25714
25714
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
@ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
– Flater
58 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
– ouflak
55 mins ago
5
5
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
– JBentley
36 mins ago
2
2
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
@JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
– Flater
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38969%2fis-the-uk-legally-prevented-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
– Alexei
2 hours ago
1
@Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
– ouflak
1 hour ago
They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
– SCFi
1 hour ago
I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
– JBentley
30 mins ago