[Link]

A move to Switzerland seems out of the question then.

Help me out then.

I will happily try.

As I understand it national referendums are rarely used in British politics but when they are, they have to be instigated by Parliament deciding to effectively hand over a specific decision with the wording having to be part of the legislation.

Whilst they are very rare they don't "effectively hand over a specific decision". All of the responsibility remains with Parliament alone.

And with regards to the June 23rd referendum, the majority of MP's in favour was overwhelming. Not a close-run thing.

True. They I think concluded that the Tory majority being sufficient to ensure it would happen anyway meant it would be politically expedient not to oppose it.

So we have a simple question. Leave or Remain. Along with a pledge from the Government of the time that the vote will be honoured as well as numerous senior politicians from the range of all strands of political thought mirroring that. And absolutely nothing about Leave requiring a deal with the EU.

True, but not sufficient to cover the whole series of events and their consequences. Parliament has tried to "honour" (what the Tories actually said was implement) the result. They have done that despite a majority of MPs, including the previous PM, being in favour of remaining. However it's vital to realise that no government is the Parliament and it's Parliament which is supreme. It was the Tory government which made the commitment and not Parliament.

The vote is held and then counted. 52% of people vote for the UK to leave.

On the basis of that, Parliament, once again by a huge majority, agree to start the process for leaving.

Then we have a general election. And about 80% of votes cast are done so for two political parties both promising to honour the result on June 23rd.

That Parliament as a whole has tried to find a way to leave is indeed because the major political parties also committed to respect the referendum result during the 2017 GE. That they have so far failed to agree doesn't mean Parliament just hands over the responsibility to the executive and allows them to implement whatever they want. Parliament is sovereign. The executive report to them, and not the other way around.

You keep on saying that circumstances are not the same anymore but what has actually fundamentally changed?

Many things. The complexities have become much clearer and better understood. No one even knew what a "deal" meant back in 2016, nor the issues surrounding the whole situation in Northern Ireland. No-one had contemplated the potential impact on whether the United Kingdom would stay united, or begin to break up. Back then it was all about "project fear" on the one hand and "£350 million a week for the NHS" on the other. In short it was politics and not realism that was being pushed. That was over 3 years ago and our whole perception of what is involved has changed. Then there is the spectre of Trump and his desire to take over where the EU vacates. Not everyone feels good about that.

Now whether you feel referendums are right or wrong is an irrelevance. Parliament decided to hold the one on June 23rd and subsequently started the process by which that result would be implemented. And an election fought on the basis, by the two main parties, that they would honour that.

Oh I accept my views on referendums are unimportant but so are referendums in a Parliamentary democracy. What matters are the promises. Promises, whether you like it or not, which can be withdrawn completely or implemented in ways you don't like, because such decisions are Parliament's alone to make.

Surely if one of those parties wishes to no longer do that then the correct course of action is to hold another general election as opposed to another referendum which you claim to loathe so much?

Ultimately that's true but it's also true that Parliament needs to access their priorities. At the moment no one party can just decide to call a GE. Stopping a no deal Brexit has been assessed as the most pressing priority.

And if another is held, surely it would have zero credibility given that the result of the first one, in contrast to every other national referendum before that, failed to be implemented? How could you honestly convince people that this time around it would be different? Or am I missing something glaring here? Is my logic wrong?

I don't want another referendum. I think it could easily lead us into as big a mess as we have now so I hope wiser heads prevail and Parliament decides that it will take the decisions itself, having fought a GE with unambivalent positions. What would that lead to? I think we would eventually leave with something very akin to the May deal, with the DUP and the ERG kicking and screaming along the way.

Edited by Matov (18 Sep 2019 10.44pm)

Edited by Matov (18 Sep 2019 10.45pm)

That is what I said so why you go into a long drawn out answer I just do not know.....as I have said before you are a know it all and a trouble making person. We just cannot debate with you as others have said. You are pathetic!!!!

I don't want another referendum. I think it could easily lead us into as big a mess as we have now so I hope wiser heads prevail and Parliament decides that it will take the decisions itself, having fought a GE with unambivalent positions. What would that lead to? I think we would eventually leave with something very akin to the May deal, with the DUP and the ERG kicking and screaming along the way.

Have you ever considered developing a sense of humour?

The money that was given to "Best for Britain" was definitely from a foundation. Mrs Miller was just one of the founders but left quite soon.

I have no evidence which supports your other assertions. Do you?