Is asking a Referendum Question twice, successively, morally wrong?

[John]

The people of the United Kingdom voted for Brexit. Yet soon after Remain campaigners claimed that it was down to people not understanding the question, that we didn't understand what we were voting for. That Brexit campaigners lied, see the £350 million figure, or that people regret the falling pound. They called for a second referendum. Since then they have changed their tact, and are calling for a referendum on the terms.

But likewise for President Trump. Many people may regret or not understand what voting for Trump meant. It begs the question.

Do we require a further understanding, and ergo a second vote?

Is asking a Referendum Question twice, successively, morally wrong?

Is asking the public to vote again, morally wrong?

Is it ever right to ask the public to vote again?

[lake]

I don't think it's morally wrong, but I think it's a bit redundant.

Maybe have a referendum again once there's an actual plan, and the referendum is simply to approve the terms of the plan or not?

[John]

I don't think it's morally wrong, but I think it's a bit redundant.

Maybe have a referendum again once there's an actual plan, and the referendum is simply to approve the terms of the plan or not?

Would it not be redundant, considering the government promised to implement the decision of the British people? Had they campaigned on the basis, maybe, but they didn't.

[k11]

I still don't understand who gave you the idea that people believed - or even cared about - the 350 million claim?

There were also lies on the Remain side, above all immigration related.

[John]

I still don't understand who gave you the idea that people believed - or even cared about - the 350 million claim?

I will admit that the majority, well nearly all, people who I saw on Facebook sharing the £350 million thing on Good Morning Britain with Nigel were Remainers.

There were also lies on the Remain side, above all immigration related.

Agreed. "The government does have control over immigration." Namely.

[hotsauce2910]

I don't think it's morally wrong, but it sets a bad precedent

[John]

I don't think it's morally wrong, but it sets a bad precedent

What would your opinions be on voting on the terms of an exit from the EU?

[anon20265329]

The thing is with a second plan whith only 4% vote majority a plan will never get approved cos there are people who voted brexit that wanted a soft brexit and there are people who wanted hard brexit... it will never get don't if we vote on the tearms

[Cameron]

Having a second referendum so soon serves no purpose other than to subvert democracy and the will of the people.

[k11]

I will admit that the majority, well nearly all, people who I saw on Facebook sharing the £350 million thing on Good Morning Britain with Nigel were Remainers.

Well that pretty much says everything needed.

[Paul_Thinks]

It's pretty patronizing IMO. The idea that the people didn't know what they were voting for and were frenzied into voting the way they did by politicians during the campaign - particularly leave voters - is complete snobbery.

If the people spouting this nonsense actually looked at the facts they would discover that (1) The British people have long been euro-skeptic and (2) the reasons why leave voters voted the way they did was primarily for reasons of democracy and sovereignty NOT anything to do with 350m going to the NHS.

[John]

Is it necessarily immoral to ask again though? Not going to pass isn't a good excuse to ask the people...

[oli]

I don't think there's anything inherently morally wrong about it, but I think it is a controversial thing to do because it is a power that could easily be abused. Instead of listening to the public, a government could just ask hold endless referendums until they get the answer they want.

It's not inherently morally wrong though, and I think there are circumstances where it would be ok. Scotland for example had a referendum relatively recently, yet circumstances have massively changed and are set to change even more, so a referendum would be justified. It's less about the time in between referendums than the state of political, social and economic circumstances; if things have changed then people are going to feel differently.

I'm also pretty sure another EU referendum would result in a remain vote.

[oli]

Maybe have a referendum again once there's an actual plan

I think the Tories need to take more criticism for not doing this in the first place. It was recklessly irresponsible to hold a referendum without an actual plan for change.

[John]

I'm also pretty sure another EU referendum would result in a remain vote

I'd definetly disagree there. People would see the correlations between what happened in Ireland, France and Denmark. It would be inexcusable. They would have so much against the remain campaign it would be unbelievable, and the government this time being neutral/leave.

[anon20265329]

No it's anti denocratic John cos it will delay brexit... Cos no term will get 50% vote

[John]

No it's anti denocratic John cos it will delay brexit... Cos no term will get 50% vote

That doesn't make it anti democratic, surely it makes it more democratic as democracy is all about giving people a choice.

[anon20265329]

No because it would mean brexit will never happen an parties like the lib dems know this

[John]

No because it would mean brexit will never happen an parties like the lib dems know this

Not getting what you want surely isn't a reason to not ask the British people.

[anon20265329]

No because this is not about what I want it's about know that everyone wants something different from brexit and it won't ever pas a second vote