"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 13-Jun-16 1:03 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 13-Jun-16 10:58 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 12-Jun-16 7:59 PM, Fredxxx wrote:
On 12/06/2016 19:56, Adrian wrote:
...
You mean if we stay in the EU

We are very unlikely to leave, even if the first referendum results in
a leave win. The government and a large majority of MPs want us to
stay.

So if Leave wins by say 60/40, they'll just ignore it, you mean?

That is an improbable result. However, as I have said before, what I
expect to happen if the vote is to leave is that the government will
go back to the EU and ask for more concessions.

Which they wouldn't get. Going back and asking for substantial changes
would be an admission that we don't really mean it. So some fig-leaves
would be offered, but that's all.

Which is all that the government would need to justify a second
referendum.

Those will then be put to a second referendum. If the public don't get
that one right,

Errm, "right" in whose opinion?

The government's of course. You don't think the referendum is anything but
a way to cut the ground from under the feet of UKIP at the last election
do you?

It was also to placate those in the Tory party that want to leave the EU,
hoping that the vote would be to stay and that that would shut them up.

then ignoring the vote would be an option, although they might go
through the motions of putting legislation to parliament, in the
knowledge that the vast majority of MPs support remain and will vote
it down. It is, after all, what the leave party say they want -
the UK government making all the decisions.

That would be a recipe for civil war.

Properly spun, most people wouldn't even realise that the government
hadn't done its best to implement the referendum decision.

Impossible to spin something like that with the majority
of the leavers pointing out what was going on.

And we don't want the UK govt
making decisions on constitutional matters.

Since the Glorious Revolution, all Acts of Parliament have been government
decisions on constitutional matters.

That's why we have a
referendum, and why there would be one in the event, for example, that
we stayed due to the vote of this one and a new treaty was proposed
asking for more powers to be ceded to Brussels.

Referenda are a way to appear to get a mandate to do what the government
were going to do anyway. They are not binding.

Legally they arent, but politically they are if they get a big majority
voting one way.