Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why

[mommysboy]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

[dick dasterdly]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

Re. the emboldened part - exactly.

The legal position is still up in the air as far as I can make out.... Only one thing is clear - namely that the referendum resulted in a vote to leave the EU.

[bkkcanuck8]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

Edited July 1, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[mommysboy]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Article 50 must be enacted in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country, so the circumstances under which it is enacted are certainly crucial.

[bkkcanuck8]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Article 50 must be enacted in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country, so the circumstances under which it is enacted are certainly crucial.

Parliament has spoken, and that was to take the question to the people. The people have spoken. There is nothing in the UK constitution on the process of enacting article 50. Article 50 is only referenced in the EU constitution.

[happy Joe]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

I also thought but it would appear that it will not be possible.

After the shock results of the 27 have regretted, sincerely.

But now everyone agrees that it is not possible to accept a member whose population majority rejects the European project.

And new laws will be passed if the UK drags to promulgate his resignation letter.

Finally, the prospect of sharing the successful legacy of the City (Ireland, Germany, France, Luxembourg ...) take over on the regrets.

Edited July 1, 2016 by happy Joe

[nontabury]

Also, note UK pound has fallen 10% so that would make UK cars cheaper to buy.

The pound has lost 10% of its value in the last episode.

But she had already lost 5% before in anticipation of the Brexit risk.

July 2015 -1 pound = $ 1.57

July 2016 -1 pound = $ 1.33

In one year the British currency lost 15%.

GDP in 2015 = 1800 billion pounds = 2.826 trillion dollars

GDP in 2016 = 1800 billion pounds = 2.394 trillion dollars

Net loss in dollars 432 billion.

All this to specify that speaks well of a major financial disaster that will not be recovered quickly as some advertise.

The price of the protectionist demagogy by especially poor leaders and perhaps also for some a little xenophobia.

Earlier this year,before the referendum was announced, the Gbp was at 51bht, now at 47bht. Not good admittedly,but not the disaster predicted by many remainers. Some of whom were talking in terms of just 40bht. We even had one person predicting 30bht.

The same can be said regarding the FTSE,again the remainers were talking about it's collapse. Well where is it now, back up to the numbers for April. In contrast the figures for Germany/France down 6%.

It must also be noted that the value of the Euro has depreciated. What will it's value be in the event of the collapse of the EU?

[ilostmypassword]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Article 50 must be enacted in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country, so the circumstances under which it is enacted are certainly crucial.

No it doesn't. The vagueness of 50 cuts both ways. Had Cameron as the head of the government decided to notify the EU under article 50, it was up to the EU to decide if that's a valid notification or not.

[mommysboy]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Article 50 must be enacted in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country, so the circumstances under which it is enacted are certainly crucial.

Parliament has spoken, and that was to take the question to the people. The people have spoken. There is nothing in the UK constitution on the process of enacting article 50. Article 50 is only referenced in the EU constitution.

This is absolute garbage. Once again. I assert therefore it is. On a side note, you have to ask why a Canadian citizen is so interested in this topic.

[ilostmypassword]

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

.

I

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Article 50 must be enacted in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country, so the circumstances under which it is enacted are certainly crucial.

Parliament has spoken, and that was to take the question to the people. The people have spoken. There is nothing in the UK constitution on the process of enacting article 50. Article 50 is only referenced in the EU constitution.

This is absolute garbage. Once again. I assert therefore it is. On a side note, you have to ask why a Canadian citizen is so interested in this topic.

On a further side note you have to ask why the nationality of a commenter is relevant. It's content, not nationality that is relevant.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

The referendum act itself has passed and it is in-force. The intent of the act is pretty clear IMHO. The people that actually sponsored the legislation that passed have also inferred it's intent. While some could argue that a particular phrase is vague, I don't think the intent is and the people have spoken. Could the UK court reject it? Sure, but it would be probably too late in reality. The act did not specify the process of withdrawing -- so an official note informing the results are official to withdraw could suffice.... then it would have to be challenged in the EU court that it was not sufficient or not ... which would be hillarious since they would be required to take it to the EU court - which they have rejected as shackles from afar.

It really boils down to whether Parliament, or anybody, has the right to prevent enactment of Article 50 if the next PM, or a top minister decide to enact it.

Sorry for 'cropping' your post, but this is the essential point.

Will the overwhelmingly 'remain' MPs find a way to ignore the referendum? I doubt it, as it would be too obvious that they are ignoring the referendum result.

More likely (IMO) is that the EU's statements saying 'no talks before article 50 has been invoked' is BS and the UK govt. will come up with a new deal requiring a new referendum.

Another option (albeit v risky) is to call for a new general election with both Tories and Labour stating that they wish to remain in the EU - and only UKIP advancing the 'leave' option.

[NeverSure]

So. If the young people of the UK were attacked by a Hitler today would they fight back or would they wind up being lampshades and bars of soap? In the end I think they'd fight back but they'd have to change their mindset some.

Cheers.

You are saying that the EU is another Hitler?

No, I'm saying that Brits have gotten soft since the WWII era. If there's any similarity with Hitler there is this desire of the EU to take over Europe as a one state entity.

I'm very pleased with Brexit and hope there is a real determination to maintain national sovereignty and the British culture. All of the fear mongering is just that because the UK won't be cut off from trade. Who kicks out his best customer or supplier?

Cheers.

[JAG]

Frankly the present turmoil in both parties is irrelevant to the act of leaving the EU. Whoever comes out top in the Tory party will influence how it is managed over the next two years, but this won't change the fact that we have decided to leave.

For as long as I can remember the EU has been a constant argument in Parliament. Treaties have been signed, institutions created, powers transferred to Brussels and court decisions, made by judges from outside our jurisdiction have been followed, all with lots of debate and arguments amongst politicians but without ever having been put to the electorate. The Lisbon Treaty was a classic example, bitterly opposed by many inside and outside parliament, signed "on the hoof" in a hotel room without any proper debate. The topic of Europe and our membership of the EU was avoided by the major contestants (with the possible exception of the Liberal Democrats )at every General Election.

Then, probably as a result of a political miscalculation on the part of David Cameron, the electorate were given the chance to have their say, in a referendum.The decision was taken out of the hands of the politicians, and given to the people. They decided to leave the EU. Messy, yes, adverse effects for the economy, possibly, (we have to wait and see), against the wishes of a significant proportion of the population, yes, but the decision of a more significant proportion of the population. Leave it is.

the electorate had its say, but the decision to leave the EU was and is still with the UK parliament.

In theory yes.

In theory Parliament can pass a bill demanding the slaughter of the firstborn!

In practice Parliament has no real choice but to obey the request conveyed by the people in this referendum.

facts apply, not your theories.

And one of the most important facts is that Parliament turned the decision over to the electorate, by granting them a referendum.

Are you suggesting that Parliament would reject the decision in the referendum?

[jope]

So. If the young people of the UK were attacked by a Hitler today would they fight back or would they wind up being lampshades and bars of soap? In the end I think they'd fight back but they'd have to change their mindset some.

Cheers.

You are saying that the EU is another Hitler?

No, I'm saying that Brits have gotten soft since the WWII era. If there's any similarity with Hitler there is this desire of the EU to take over Europe as a one state entity.

I'm very pleased with Brexit and hope there is a real determination to maintain national sovereignty and the British culture. All of the fear mongering is just that because the UK won't be cut off from trade. Who kicks out his best customer or supplier?

Cheers.

Thanks for clarifying.

[ilostmypassword]

the electorate had its say, but the decision to leave the EU was and is still with the UK parliament.

In theory yes.

In theory Parliament can pass a bill demanding the slaughter of the firstborn!

In practice Parliament has no real choice but to obey the request conveyed by the people in this referendum.

facts apply, not your theories.

And one of the most important facts is that Parliament turned the decision over to the electorate, by granting them a referendum.

Are you suggesting that Parliament would reject the decision in the referendum?

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

[MissAndry]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

British public opinion wants out now.

It hasn't changed, and it won't change.

No matter what the spin of the lefty liberal media says.

All my pals back in the UK are outraged that they aren't out already.

If you are wanting to be an MP in England, you can't afford to stand as a remainer, you'll lose.

[rixalex]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

...if it does that will mean that henceforth, referendums have no worth, because once you have ignored one, you can ignore them all. And if you are going to ignore referendums, it's not such a great leap to start ignoring elections.

[ilostmypassword]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

...if it does that will mean that henceforth, referendums have no worth, because once you have ignored one, you can ignore them all. And if you are going to ignore referendums, it's not such a great leap to start ignoring elections.

In fact, it's a huge leap. What nonsense.

[rixalex]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

...if it does that will mean that henceforth, referendums have no worth, because once you have ignored one, you can ignore them all. And if you are going to ignore referendums, it's not such a great leap to start ignoring elections.

In fact, it's a huge leap. What nonsense.

No, not really.

Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

[mommysboy]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

[dick dasterdly]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Somehow I managed to miss that key assertion, although I did notice that politicians relied about opinions on pretty much everything.

Was this another opinion stated as fact?

I ask, as both sides were less than honest - and the only FACT is that the electorate voted to leave the EU.

[ilostmypassword]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

...if it does that will mean that henceforth, referendums have no worth, because once you have ignored one, you can ignore them all. And if you are going to ignore referendums, it's not such a great leap to start ignoring elections.

In fact, it's a huge leap. What nonsense.

No, not really.

Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

[dick dasterdly]

No, not really.

Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Please answer the point raised, rather than an entirely different question that you prefer to discuss.

[ilostmypassword]

No, not really.

Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Please answer the point raised, rather than an entirely different question that you prefer to discuss.

Which point was that?

[dick dasterdly]

Rivalex's post

"Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

Edit - sorry, I didn't realise that reading the post above your post in the quoted thread would be so difficult .

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[ilostmypassword]

Rivalex's post

"Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that..."

And how exactly does one prove or disprove an assertion like that? Are there similar instances in the past we can go to where a non-binding referendum led to the fall of democracy? I say that Britain is still a government of laws. And it has an independent judiciary. But if you want to believe that Brexit not going ahead is the beginning of the end of UK democracy, be my guest.

[dick dasterdly]

Rivalex's post

"Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that..."

And how exactly does one prove or disprove an assertion like that? Are there similar instances in the past we can go to where a non-binding referendum led to the fall of democracy? I say that Britain is still a government of laws. And it has an independent judiciary. But if you want to believe that Brexit not going ahead is the beginning of the end of UK democracy, be my guest.

OK. I think ignoring the referendum vote (that is still being stated by Cameron as being a binding vote) would be undemocratic, and it appears even Cameron thinks the same.

On the other hand, you think it would be entirely reasonable.

We can agree to disagree.

[Laughing Gravy]

"So, what's wrong with the Chinese buying up London? ".

Personally I have nothing against the Chinese, my wife is a Chinese/Thai hiso and I think they're great people.

But a gentlemen poster was complaining earlier about what's happening on the street in the UK, in London those streets used to house Brits, then Europeans, then various nationalities in different areas, then Russians and now Chinese. Friends tell me, and this confirmed by the media, that the price of property in London is now such that many wealthy foreigners can't afford to live there, many are now scouting and buying into the larger more desirable cities of the UK. As for the native Brits, well, they've been forced to rent in an increasing number of cases, especially the young as they are priced out of the market.

It seems to me that whilst we're making the UK attractive to foreign purchasers of everything in the country, especially the housing stock (not sold to wealth creators) , we don't care about the availability and affordability of housing for our own citizens. So it seems distinctly odd, if not totally bizarre, to complain about how the high cost of Eu membership and the negative effects of UK immigration whilst at the same time we're selling the country in parts to any foreigner who wants to buy it, a process that was just accelerated by the Brexit vote.

Thypical Chang Mai post. My wife is Thai/Chinese "hi so" . Is it relevant to this discussion that YOU think she is, I repeat "HI -SO" what snobbishness, but what can we expect from a mill owners son.

So you don't do satire NB, I was going to put a silly little smiley after that phrase and and add that I was special forces then I thought no, even the most imbecilic of posters who've been on TVF for any period of time will recognise that as oft repeated Thai Visa humour subject matter, seemingly not. Ah well, never mind.

And it's odd for an Englishman not to get that type of humour, are you absolutely certain you're a Brit. NB and not something else?

Anyway, 'ave to get back t' mill t'see t'lads, a'fore you know it they'll all be on their uppers and wanting a raise, bloody peasants, who do they think they are eh!

Harrogate and York two 'luvvy boroughs', what do you expect. Go to Leeds and Bradford you will find plenty there.

Hilarious!

I'm in York now, following Winchester and 'arrogate before that. Still not come across a genuine Brexiteer prepared to admit as much. Even on my lunch trip to Belgravia, not one. Odd eh?

Oh dear you are in two Luvvy boroughs. Go to Leeds and Bradford and you will find thousand of Brexiters.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[rixalex]

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Not one single person who voted in the referendum, from either side, thought that they were merely taking part in an opinion poll.

If that was the case, the time to mention it would have been before the vote. Mentioning it after the vote isn't going to wash with anyone, besides those who voted remain and can't accept they lost.

[ilostmypassword]

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Not one single person who voted in the referendum, from either side, thought that they were merely taking part in an opinion poll.

If that was the case, the time to mention it would have been before the vote. Mentioning it after the vote isn't going to wash with anyone, besides those who voted remain and can't accept they lost.

I'm talking here about legality, not about political reality. That said, should public opinion turn against it, do you think the new government is going to go ahead with it and their electoral future be damned?