Referendum on Brexit Terms


According to a poll completed by ComRes, the 53% of people do not believe we should have a referendum on the terms of our exit from the European Union.

#Thoughts? Should we have another referendum?


Also… congratulations to the Financial Times for posting this letter in their newspaper. Very few newspapers would do this…

^^ Click on it to view the whole thing.


“According to a poll completed by ComRes, the 53% of people do not believe we should have a referendum on the terms of our exit from the European Union.”

Makes it sound like the referendum is ABOUT the terms of exit.

“The UK should have a second referendum once terms of leaving the EU have been established”:

Makes it sound like the terms are established, and then you have another brexit vote.


Actually it clearly states: ‘On the terms’.

I very much doubt this was on the voters minds. They took it at face value, that there should not be another referendum on our leaving of it.


Your summary clearly does say “on the terms”, yes, but not the twitter poll.

I’m saying the twitter poll question is implying there should be a second brexit vote, while your title implies the referendum should be about the terms.

Pretty big discrepancy. One referendum is “okay, we’re leaving, let’s decide the terms” and the other one is “with these terms, leave or remain”


You have completely backtracked. Once you said mine was ‘on the terms’, and before you said the Twitter one was ‘one the terms’…

Read the Twitter Post. It clearly says ‘referendum once terms of leaving the EU have been established’. Therefore a referendum after we negotiate, after the 2 years. So after we decide how our exit will be done, we will have a referendum… So it is a ‘with these terms, leave or remain’.


No, there should not be a second referendum. We had a referendum under a Conservative government, and the result will be executed by a Conservative government.


We should never have had one in the first place - constitutionally and politically it makes no sense whatsoever. People voted to leave for so many reasons, and with so many different visions of a post-Brexit Britain.

By the logic that gave us a referendum in the first place, then absolutely we should. But practically, I don’t really see much to be gained in terms of further complicating one of the biggest political crises since WW2.


A referendum on the Brexit terms wouldn’t be a very good idea.

If a majority rejected the proposed terms then what would happen?

I’d assume it would simply lengthen the time and expense involved in the negotiations which would be unhelpful for the UK both politically and economically. It would also increase the frustration felt by European Nations who we intend to remain trading partners with.


Manifesto pledge, and it is obvious that we should have had one in the first place because the people voted for it. You cannot deny the people a chance to change their future like this.


[quote=“John, post:10, topic:108879”]
it is obvious that we should have had one in the first place because the people voted for it.[/quote]

The fact that a given number of people think something doesn’t inherently make it more or less of a strong belief.

Of course I could.

Why give people the chance to make society unequivocally worse? Should we have a referendum on the death penalty, or on racial profiling, or on the government’s fiscal policy? And if not, then why have a referendum on anything other than independence?

Additionally, why accept tyranny of the majority?


Well this is inherently dependent on what you find worse. You find that Brexit would be terrible, therefore we should never have a vote on it. This is nothing about inherently having a vote itself though. I could argue: Why should we have a vote every five years because if we voted Labour we could make ourselves worse off…

Why should we vote for governments at all. Firstly, you cannot compare racial profiling or the death penalty to the EU referendum. They are on different levels. Secondly, you answered the latter yourself… Government’s Fiscal Policy.

Why accept tyranny of the minority?


In an ideal world, I would like to see a referendum on the terms of Brexit - I think that the people should have a say in whether they agree with the manner in which we leave the EU etc.

However, I don’t believe it’s realistically possible. We all saw how hectic the first campaign was, all the drama that it caused. Although referenda aren’t binding on the government, I think it would place even more pressure on the government to come out of the EU with a good deal if the public votes against the terms of Brexit. Would the UK keep having referenda until the majority of the public agrees with the terms?


Not entirely.

The main argument against an EU referendum is that the people don’t understand the issue, which is entirely true.

The purpose of general elections, however, is to limit and control the party in power.

Government is far better than anarchy.

Why not?

Seeing as the decision to leave the EU will ultimately be activated by Parliament (or maybe unilaterally by the government), it’s technically government policy to leave the EU.

We gave the people the right to choose over one incredibly important and complicated aspect of government policy. By the same logic, why not let them do the same over every aspect?

A fully functional liberal democracy would prevent both from occurring.


All power is from the people in the state, why give the chance to make things worse? Who are you to declare your own people whom parliament is derived from should not make these decisions? MPs are not magically smarter then everyone else, representative democracy is still tyranny of majority but merely places that majorities wishes in the hands of representatives, all whom come from said people.


That’s fundementally how democracy works, its works damn well in Switzerland


It’s a simple fact that ordinary people cannot be expected to understand the intricate details of fundamentally complicated political issues. This is why we elect people to make decisions on our behalf.

Also, tyranny of the majority should be avoided at all costs.

MPs are paid to understand complex political issues better than the average person. That’s literally the reason they exist. Voters, meanwhile, do not understand these issues, are not constitutionally bound and will vote irrationally and emotionally rather than through being informed and professionally responsible.

Not with a constitution designed to stifle the power of representatives (which of course the UK doesn’t have, but we’re talking theoretically).

It’s how radical direct democracy would theoretically work.

Does it though?

Switzerland has numerous very unusual laws in place, many of which are the result of their democratic system.


Anyone who has majority support (or just more than anyone else) can become an MP, even those dreaded populist demagogue racists…


I am surprised this topic is going on as in forever.
It was clear that the UK voted out of the European Union.
Wasting time discussing second or third referendum is no use.
It is high time that people realize that what should be debated right now is how the UK should make the Brexit work.
This topic would be like American not accepting Trump as their Elected President. We need to bin the second referendum idea. let us not cry over spilled milk.


A referendum on the terms of departure from the EU could be a good idea.

However what would happen if we voted against it, surely it would lengthen the process of withdrawing and create further economic uncertainty.

We can probably trust the current Conservative government to negotiate a pretty good deal but there’s no reason to object to this sort of safeguard.

Above all, the departure must be genuine and ‘take back control’ to a noticeable extent, any watered down arrangement deserves immediate rejection.