Well, given that if they did a referendum now, Brexit would handily lose given the large number of former supporters who realized they were lied to
The Remain camp claimed a Leave vote would lead to a mass exodus of companies from the UK, falling house prices and, in one case, World War III, neither side covered themselves in glory. In fact, polling since the referendum has been very mixed as to whether there’s been any significant change in public opinion.
‘Well what is the point of referendum if it needs approval by parliament?’
They have no point in the Parliamentary system run by the United Kingdom in that they can only be advisory.
It was a stunt by Cameron to contain the Europhobes within his own party and call UKIP’s bluff. He gambled the entire future of the nation that he’d win, but with a small enough margin that the EU would have to accommodate some idiotic demand or another dreamt up in Number 10.
That didn’t happen.
As for subverting the will of the people. It’s a terrible indictment of British democracy if we can’t see that we’re looking into an economic abyss that will hurt the most vulnerable people with high inflation, falling living standards, trade imbalances and a collapsing currency. A mature democracy would back off and admit the costs of leaving the EU far outweigh any sovereignty arguments made by ideologues.
Sorry I totally get what you mean to tell I don’t want to even argue. It’s just that this whole bloody mess seem totally absurd. I mean what we essentially have here is an international crisis that started off as a result of an attempt it resolve an internal conflict within one single party. Also a political system that doesn’t know how to deal with a result of a vote organised by the very same political system.
I don’t know if it is mature or not, but sure seems silly.
Lack of knowledge on important issues and tendency of public to be swayed one way or another are well known problems inherent to democracy. Heck, it’s been like that since the inception of concept back in ancient Athens. The exactly same arguments have been used to argue against democracy for ages. Still is elite any better? Is there any way to guarantee that elite will not go and to some absurdly stupid thing? And back to my original question, why even call a vote if you don’t think that public has a capacity to decide on the matter?
No. Even if you can define an oligopoly succinctly, it’s just not that simple. Things rarely are that simple, and if you believe they are, you’re falling it to the same trap as HM Government.
Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people”.
But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people’s rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.
Two conflicting ideas of what the Government can and cannot do, one based on Parliamentary sovereignty; the other based on the notion of the Government exercising prerogatives of the Crown.
"mass exodus of companies from the UK"
Check. (Except in cases of special, secret sweetheart deals for companies.)
"falling house prices"
Check. (Especially once banking would leave London. A good chunk of the country’s real estate value would be expected to evaporate.)
"World War III"
They mixed up the election of Trump with Brexit there.
Seriously though, the Remain arguments, if anything, didn’t go far enough in predicted doom.