You are reading a single comment by @Howard and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Howard-
Maybe not. TM could still act in the best interest of the nation. It's funny that all the old PM's and very seasoned politicians either in office, like Ken Clarke, or who formerly held high positions, all say the same thing now that they have no real personal upside in political careers and seem to view things as what's best for the country as a whole, and with the benefit of having far greater insight into the complexities of this than we do.
welpeur
This argument is based on the misrepresentation of a referendum being binding as opposed to advisory. As someone correctly pointed out above, 44m did not vote Leave. For a situation with such complexity and profound impact for not just everyone in the UK now, but who are affected by this, and future generations, then it is absurd to defer a decision of such magnitude to the disgruntled, misled and poorly informed 'thug in the pub'. A referendum provides information to elected leaders who are supposed to deal with the depth and complexity of real facts to reach decisions in the best interest of their electorate, as such objectiveness is required, as is a two-way communication back to the electorate. More democracy is NOT undemocratic and is the rational and fair thing to do in such a situation, as the precedent set by other, better functioning democracies sets precedent for with second referendums based on better informed positions and ahead of decisions of profound importance.