Is the UK legally prevented from having another referendum on Brexit?












1















Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?






united-kingdom brexit







share|improve this question









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
















1















Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?






united-kingdom brexit







share|improve this question









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














1












1








1








Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?






united-kingdom brexit







share|improve this question









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






share|improve this question









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.











share|improve this question









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.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 mins ago









JBentley

29047




29047






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




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














  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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



















6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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











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.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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









8














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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
















8














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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














8












8








8







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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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



















  • 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











6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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
















6














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.






share|improve this answer


























  • 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














6












6








6







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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























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



















  • 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










Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

Image
0 I want to redirect customer using controller when button is clicked in one of my phtml files. So far I got, controller: public function execute(){ return $this->addToCart(); } public function addToCart(){ // some logic $this->_redirect('checkout/cart/index'); } The above is working fine (redirecting) when you access the controller via URL (www.mydomain.com/batchorder/index/addtocart). And here is my .phtml file: $("#addToCart").click(function(){ let controllerUrl = "<?php echo $block-getUrl('batchorder/index/addtocart'); ?>" $.post(controllerUrl, { "products": JSON.stringify(sideCart.SideCartProducts) }) The post request returns my logic as it should, however, it is not redirecting. Anyone can help? ...
Read more

Polycentropodidae

Image
Polycentropodidae Plectrocnemia conspersa Siyentipiko nga pagklasipika Ginhadi-an: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Ubosphylum: Hexapoda Klase: Insecta Orden: Trichoptera Labawbanay: Hydropsychoidea Banay: Polycentropodidae Binomial nga ngaran Polycentropodidae An Polycentropodidae [1] in uska familia han Insecta. An Polycentropodidae in nahilalakip ha familia nga Hydropsychoidea, ordo nga Trichoptera, classis nga Insecta, punoan nga Arthropoda, ngan regnum nga Animalia. [1] An familia nga Polycentropodidae in naglalakip hin 660 ka mga species, sumala ha Catalogue of Life [1] . An kladograma hini sumala ha Catalogue of Life [1] : Hydropsychoidea   Polycentropodidae  Adectophylax Antillopsyche Cernotina Cyrnellus Cyrnodes Cyrnopsis Cyrnus Eodipseudopsis Eoneureclipsis Holocentropus Kambaitipsyche Neucentropus ...
Read more