-
The article should have stated that no parliament can bind a subsequent (or indeed same) parliament. The electorate doesn't need to feature. Although, by extension, the choices of the electorate cannot bind choices of future electorates, once Parliament is involved.
The mandate point seems nuanced on the fact that it a mandate is not part of this process - it's a veil of legitimacy worn when decisions (at the Parliamentary and Government level) are taken.
Given the ambiguity of any mandate inferred from the first referendum (due to it having completely insufficient framework for a true mandate to be inferred), the author raises a credible doubt that a subsequent referendum would lead to further ambiguos mandates, and ambiguity held more weight.
Either way, it would still take legislation to put into effect any preferences stated, because muh sovrnty, and endless had wringing as to whether the government had backing to do so (irrespective of the fact they demonstrably have the authority).
A second referendum would not overturn anything - you can't overturn an opinion poll.
Agreed on the GE point though.
You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
NotThamesWater
That article makes some good points but misses on 2 key ones:
First, he talks about how an electorate cannot bind a subsequent electorate and how democratic decisions cannot be irreversible, but then dithers on the question of which mandate would have priority, the original referendum or the subsequent one. Obviously the answer is the later one, since more recentd democratic decisions overturn earlier ones.
Secondly, he says that the last GE was an endorsement of Brexit since the majority of the electorate voted for parties who endorsed it. This is nonsense, the GE was a vote on many issues and to expect a sudden swing away from the two major parties is unrealistic. The fact that the Tory majority was eliminated shows that there was no majority support for their vision of Brexit, but many voters would have seen that as an exercise is damage limitation (a Labour Brexit being the lesser of two evils, in the absence of an anti-Brexit party that could feasibly get into government), not a demonstration of their support for Brexit qua Brexit.