>
>>
>> If it comes to that is it right that the population have to accept it
>> without a further say either by means of an election or a referendum?
>>
That's a fair point, but the problem is that as we have recently discovered, a referendum is not a very useful way of communicating the population's wishes into action.
1) there is no percentage majority stipulation, so anything less than say a 55/45 vote doesn't, to the 45 -ers, confirm anything.
2) there is no agreement or restriction on the number of referendums. Anyone who disagrees with the result of one referendum can immediately start campaigning for another referendum, to the extent of disrupting the implementation of the first.
3) there is no constitutional mechanism in the UK for integrating the result, even a clear-cut one, into the process of a parliament and a representative democracy. We launched into this new process with as little thought to how it would work as if a referendum was merely an opinion poll.
We could have had a law making a referendum result binding on the government if there was a) a minimum turnout requirement, and b) a 2/3 majority requirement, but we didn't, so a referendum merely adds division and confusion. It divides and angers, not unites and pacifies.
So I hope everyone is now sick and tired of this experiment.
The alternative and traditional means for a government to seek a renewed mandate or guidance is a general election. I think that is the only way to proceed now.
The government should clearly state to the commons that if it doesn't back the draft/final deal, whatever that is by the time of the debate, then the consequence will be that we then leave without a deal.
If they lose the vote they should call a general election.
|
