On 24/09/2019 16:10, charles wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 15:12:09 +0100, wrote:
snip
One point he made - and the interested should really go listen for
themselves - was that the nature of the political process meant
that the decision (here) was at least felt to be made with sufficient
popular support, thus giving it natural democratic legitimacy;
snip
This is the crux of it for me for the whole Brexit process and could
so easily been resolved by:
1) Leaving the referendum to be the advisory poll it should only have
ever been and / or
if you read the Supreme Court's judgement you will see that,
constitutionally, it was only advisory, but the Government decided to
honour the result
It was not the government. MPs of all parties voted for a referendum and
agreed, both in advance and afterwards, that they would be bound by the
result.
At the subsequent general election, around 2/3 of current MPs stood on a
manifesto of abdiing by that result.
Even without those commitments, do you think it would have been tenable
to have the referendum, for leave to win and for the government to just
say, well it was too close for our liking, so we'll just ignore it?
SteveW