Democracy

[AtW]

So why is it democratic to have two or even three votes on May’s deal but undemocratic to have 2nd ref?

[NotAllThere]

So why is it democratic to have two or even three votes on May’s deal but undemocratic to have 2nd ref?

You can't disrespect the dead.

[Bean]

So why is it democratic to have two or even three votes on May’s deal but undemocratic to have 2nd ref?

https://assets.publishing.service.go...arge_print.pdf

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

on Slide/Page 20

HTH BIDI

[meridian]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...arge_print.pdf

on Slide/Page 20

HTH BIDI

Leaflets are now part of the constitution?

[meridian]

So why is it democratic to have two or even three votes on May’s deal but undemocratic to have 2nd ref?

The simple answer is that the UK is a representative democracy. We vote for MPs to collectively make decisions for us.

Whether they decide to give a second vote, or decide not to, or decide to give themselves two or three, it's democratic for the form of democracy that the UK has in place.

[Bean]

Leaflets are now part of the constitution?

Bleat all you want. I answered the OP question.

After the government has spent £7 million on producing the leaflet, to be sent to every household, as part of the information on the referendum and they say "will implement".

It would be counter to democratic principles, yes.

Google, undemocratic.

HTH BIDI

[meridian]

Bleat all you want. I answered the OP question.

After the government has spent £7 million on producing the leaflet, to be sent to every household, as part of the information on the referendum and they say "will implement".

It would be counter to democratic principles, yes.

Google, undemocratic.

HTH BIDI

No you didn't. See my second response to OP above.

In addition, even if a leaflet were to be binding on a government (it's not), it wouldn't be binding on any subsequent government. The day that Cameron walked away is the day that the leaflet ceased to be relevant.

Edit: and to take your "argument" a step further, even if the leaflet statement that "we will implement what you decide" was binding, it doesn't preclude holding a second referendum over the type of exit.

We could argue all day about leaflets, or alternatively referendums being advisory not binding, etc, but at the end of the day none of that is relevant. We are in a representative democracy where our representatives decide what to do (within the legal and constitutional constraints).

[shaunbhoy]

We are in a representative democracy where our representatives decide what to do (within the legal and constitutional constraints).

Indeed we are. And our representatives decided, by means of a binary Referendum, to hand decision-making powers to the Electorate in this instance.

We await their implementation of said Referendum result.

And we are not holding our breath!

[meridian]

Indeed we are. And our representatives decided, by means of a binary Referendum, to hand decision-making powers to the Electorate in this instance.

We await their implementation of said Referendum result.

And we are not holding our breath!

Technically not true. In legal terms it was advisory, not binding. If it was binding then yes I would agree, but it was not.

[stonehenge]

When we find out what we're actually going to end up with, even brexiteers might fancy another referendum.