4 ms·

> I don't see any material change in circumstances that would justify redoing the referendum. Other than, as noted elsewhere: 1. It was an advisory vote, not

• lmm 8y ago
  > 1. It was an advisory vote, not constitutionally binding Parliament can't bind itself, so all referendums in the UK are advisory; indeed the UK has no constitution as such. In any case, what would be different in a re-run? > 2. The leave campaign broke the law You're talking about the breach of spending limits? Those limits are important and those who break them should be punished; at the same time small-scale breaches of the limits are relatively normal occurrences that we've never redone an election over. I'm pretty sure all the main parties have broken them at some point or another (and been duly fined for doing so). > 3. To quote the parent post "Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’ fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that were articulated before the referendum". Like I said, what do you think has changed? The predictable consequences of Brexit now are much the same as the predictable consequences of Brexit at referendum time. The no deal outcome is the same as it ever was, the deal on the table is the deal anyone who thought about it would have predicted.