4 ms·

The popular vote was to leave by a very narrow margin. But the vote was in no way binding. It’s also in hindsight been run against a background of law breaking

The popular vote was to leave by a very narrow margin. But the vote was in no way binding. It’s also in hindsight been run against a background of law breaking and outright disinformation from the Leave campaign. Further public opinion has changed and it’s doubtful if a second more informed referendum would confirm the first. I can’t think of a truer assault on democracy than to ask a vague question once, accept one side won under dodgy circumstances by a small margin then treat it as license to drive the country off the edge of a cliff.

x38iq84n 8y ago
The government and the PM promised they would honor the result of the vote and carry it out. They sent a leaflet with this promise to every door in the UK. They vote may not be legally binding, but the government is morally obliged to carry it out. The question was clear and circumstances of art. 50 were known ahead of the vote. People voted to Leave the EU, not to leave conditionally with a deal or in name only. Cameron explained what leaving the EU means - to leave its customs union and single market. Anything less than that is contemptuous of the voters.
- meheleventyone 8y ago
  And as the corruption of the Leave campaign was exposed plus the promises of easy negotiations vanished the government was morally obliged to renegotiate with a British public that appears to have changed its mind. Particularly now the actual terms of leaving and their consequences are more clear. Not drive the UK off a cliff.
- benj111 8y ago
  "Cameron explained what leaving the EU means - to leave its customs union and single market" Which was written off as project fear. We were told we could have any relationship we wanted with Europe. The one thing I don't recall being suggested, was a no deal Brexit, as the 'true' Brexiteers now seem to want. The question was unfortunately not clear, which is why we are in this mess. It was predicated on remain winning. The leave vote wasn't for anything, it was against the EU. That just excludes one specific relationship.

x38iq84n 8y ago

The government and the PM promised they would honor the result of the vote and carry it out. They sent a leaflet with this promise to every door in the UK. They vote may not be legally binding, but the government is morally obliged to carry it out. The question was clear and circumstances of art. 50 were known ahead of the vote. People voted to Leave the EU, not to leave conditionally with a deal or in name only. Cameron explained what leaving the EU means - to leave its customs union and single market. Anything less than that is contemptuous of the voters.

meheleventyone 8y ago
And as the corruption of the Leave campaign was exposed plus the promises of easy negotiations vanished the government was morally obliged to renegotiate with a British public that appears to have changed its mind. Particularly now the actual terms of leaving and their consequences are more clear. Not drive the UK off a cliff.
benj111 8y ago
"Cameron explained what leaving the EU means - to leave its customs union and single market" Which was written off as project fear. We were told we could have any relationship we wanted with Europe. The one thing I don't recall being suggested, was a no deal Brexit, as the 'true' Brexiteers now seem to want. The question was unfortunately not clear, which is why we are in this mess. It was predicated on remain winning. The leave vote wasn't for anything, it was against the EU. That just excludes one specific relationship.