The Student Room Group

Should we have a Second Referendum?

Scroll to see replies

I will lose my faith in democracy if we have a second vote on Brexit.
You don't understand democracy. Anything over 50% is enough for action to be taken.
Reply 22
Original post by Hiphophup

Having a second referendum would highly undemocratic


Just as having general elections at least every five years is undemocratic.

As a leaver voter in the previous two referendums, I support further votes to confirm the view of the electorate is unchanged.
Original post by RogerOxon
1.9% isn't enough for a multi-year process, during which many issues have been found that voters simply could not have appreciated. We now have a lot more information about what Brexit could mean, so it is, IMO, entirely appropriate to have a referendum on which of the main options to take, e.g. current deal, no deal, remain. However, I would not have supported having a referendum on this at all - we don't vote on what treatment the NHS should give for cancer, which the average voter probably knows as much about as they do about the EU.


Yes, let's put all of our trust into intellectuals such as Diane Abbott and the academic guiding light that is Stella Creasy.
Original post by LostAccount
Yes, let's put all of our trust into intellectuals such as Diane Abbott and the academic guiding light that is Stella Creasy.

What percentage of voters do you think did any research into what Brexit would mean? MPs have time and resources that most voters don't. I would assume that, on average, they're more intelligent and better educated than the average person - they are elected to make informed decisions. Given that they obviously cannot agree on Brexit, it wouldn't have happened, which, IMO, is the correct course.
I believe having general elections every five years is very democratic, without elections we would be living in a dictatorship... As times change we need an evolving government to harness the changes and solve new problems. General elections are also a way of holding MPs to account for their actions.

Original post by Quady
Just as having general elections at least every five years is undemocratic.

As a leaver voter in the previous two referendums, I support further votes to confirm the view of the electorate is unchanged.
(edited 5 years ago)
Although MPs are in theory better informed they can easily become corrupt, organisations seek and pay MPs to vote a certain way, MPs are also told how to vote by party whips..

Original post by RogerOxon
What percentage of voters do you think did any research into what Brexit would mean? MPs have time and resources that most voters don't. I would assume that, on average, they're more intelligent and better educated than the average person - they are elected to make informed decisions. Given that they obviously cannot agree on Brexit, it wouldn't have happened, which, IMO, is the correct course.
Reply 27
Original post by Hiphophup
As times change we need an evolving government to harness the changes and solve new problems.

Indeed, hence the justification for further in/out referendums.
Original post by Quady
Indeed, hence the justification for further in/out referendums.

Referendums are not comparable with General Elections.

May I ask if you have read May's deal?
Original post by Quady
Indeed, hence the justification for further in/out referendums.


No that does not justify another referendum, circumstance has not changed since the first referendum we are still facing the same EU.

You cannot compare a Brexit referendum and a general election... We don't need another referendum, having another referendum would be undemocratic because it rules out what the electorate have already voted for. This new referendum would not be peoples true opinions it would be people trying to end the constant bickering in parliament. We need general elections otherwise we would be living in a dictatorship.
(edited 5 years ago)
Noi absolutely waste of time and money there’s no indication the result would change.
Original post by Hiphophup
No that does not justify another referendum, circumstance has not changed since the first referendum we are still facing the same EU.

Wrong. There was not a concrete deal on the table before, nor did the question differentiate between leaving with or without a deal. Given that parliament cannot agree on a way forward, something needs to be done to break the deadlock - a referendum on the detailed deal available would seem like a good way to do that. The leave vote was obviously fragmented between different visions of what "leave" would mean, some of which have been shown to be wrong, so that's another thing that has changed.

It's also been almost 3 years since the referendum. How long does a 1.9% margin give a mandate for?
Original post by RogerOxon
Wrong. There was not a concrete deal on the table before, nor did the question differentiate between leaving with or without a deal. Given that parliament cannot agree on a way forward, something needs to be done to break the deadlock - a referendum on the detailed deal available would seem like a good way to do that. The leave vote was obviously fragmented between different visions of what "leave" would mean, some of which have been shown to be wrong, so that's another thing that has changed.

It's also been almost 3 years since the referendum. How long does a 1.9% margin give a mandate for?


Untill it is carried out.

What is your problem with May's deal and hold a general election.after?
Yes
Original post by Burton Bridge
Untill it is carried out.

The problem is that 'it' wasn't clearly defined, and Parliament cannot agree on 'it'.

What is your problem with May's deal and hold a general election.after?

I have no issue with May's deal being the Brexit pathway, but Parliament does. I don't see the link with a general election if it can be done before.

I am against Brexit though, especially based on a 1.9% margin on a vague question. We obviously know lots of details now that weren't known in the first referendum. Brexit is a multi-year process, so multiple votes along the way, at key decision points where Parliament cannot agree, should be expected.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 35
Original post by geoking
You don't understand democracy. Anything over 50% is enough for action to be taken.

Perhaps, except 50% of the electorate didn't vote to Leave. It was just 37%.

And see this previous referendum for precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum

It set a 40% of the electorate requirement (not even 50%). On that basis the 2016 referendum would also have failed.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 36
No matter what they decide to do, some people won't be happy with the result. This is the consequence of any debate, I think they should just work out the best deal for all.
Original post by RogerOxon
The problem is that 'it' wasn't clearly defined, and Parliament cannot agree on 'it'.


I have no issue with May's deal being the Brexit pathway, but Parliament does. I don't see the link with a general election if it can be done before.

The link is our future relationship with Europe, you said we have not been able make a clear view of what we want. May's deal is framework for future negotiations to build what Europe we want.

A general election would provide that mandate.
Reply 38
Original post by Burton Bridge
The link is our future relationship with Europe, you said we have not been able make a clear view of what we want. May's deal is framework for future negotiations to build what Europe we want.

A general election would provide that mandate.

Putting May's WA to a referendum would be a truer demonstration of it though. The process started with a referendum, so testing the proposed agreement with a referendum is the logical final step.

I was saying this 2 years ago...
Original post by Burton Bridge
The link is our future relationship with Europe, you said we have not been able make a clear view of what we want. May's deal is framework for future negotiations to build what Europe we want.

A general election would provide that mandate.

It's interesting that you think that there's a mandate for a 'framework' but not for negotiation of further detail.

Is there a mandate for a "no deal" Brexit, in your opinion? Some would claim that's what the result meant.

Quick Reply