There will be no second referendum, cabinet agrees

[brooklynite]

Source: Channel 4

The Cabinet agreed this morning there would be no second referendum. David Cameron will spell that out in his Commons statement this afternoon.

They don’t want false hopes or complications beyond the ones already visited on the country.

Oliver Letwin is overseeing the “scoping” exercise on what is and isn’t possible in a negotiation. The idea of Michael Gove being lead negotiator dates back to when, a touch unrealistically, he and others on the Leave side thought they could persuade David Cameron to stay put for longer.

Boris Johnson just emerged from Downing Street to state again his support for a points based immigration system combined somehow with access to the single market.

Read more: http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/referendum-cabinet-agrees/33044

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Looking more likely that there WILL be a second referendum in Scotland, two years after the first.

And, this time, they may very well opt out of the UK and into Europe as a sovereign country.

The German Foreign Minister has just said they would be welcomed with open arms.

Sinn Fein has called for a Northern Ireland referendum to opt out of the UK and into the Irish Republic. Renewed sectarian tensions and even violence there would advance this cause.

[democrattotheend]

24. Here's hoping

That might keep English as one of the official languages of the EU, for one thing.

[jalan48]

2. How about best two out of three?

[cstanleytech]

3. I thought the vote though was only advisory and not binding? If thats true why dont they

just tell the people something along the lines of "for the good of the British people we have decided it is best for us to remain a member of the EU" and just leave it at that?

[Kelvin Mace]

4. It is not binding

But like the various plans in 1913, they will not stop to consider the folly of marching in lockstep across the field to be mowed down by machine guns. The people want their country to commit economic suicide, so who are they to question the will of the people?

They pick a fine time to respect democracy.

[vdogg]

5. There would be pandemonium if they did that.

All parties agreed beforehand that they would abide by the results of the vote. While it is "technically" advisory it really isn't. This is a real vote with real consequences and the politicians are living up to their word (for once) and submitting to the will of the people. I think they made a terrible decision with this vote, but they made a decision nonetheless and now it's time to deal with the fallout. This is a cautionary tale for us concerning the upcoming election. Do not protest vote, the stakes are just too high this year.

[cstanleytech]

6. "technically"? Either it is advisory or it isnt.

[vdogg]

7. I thought I was rather clear in my post.

By law it is advisory, however all parties agreed before the vote that they would act in accordance with the results of the referendum.

[cstanleytech]

8. Well unless they were stupid and signed a pledge they should just issue statement

thanking the people and promise to look into it but that for now the UK will remain in the EU.
Of course thats if any sanity remains, which I have my doubts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Why would 'signing a pledge' make a difference?

'Pledges' don't have any force in a court of law. You were complaining that is something is 'technically' advisory, then it could be ignored. A 'pledge' can be ignored too.

But if politicians say they'll follow the results of a referendum, and then decide not to because it didn't provide the result they wanted, they'll get thrown out at the first chance possible, and worse nutters will take their places.

[cstanleytech]

12. Depends how its done, I think the only hope they have now might be if the Queen

issues a statement saying she has directed her government to seek other alternatives or something along those lines.
That way it gets the heat off most of the elected officials and puts it largely on her but hopefully preserves the government itself.

[vdogg]

13. What you're advocating though is overruling the will of the people.

That's not going to go down well. The vote was clear cut. I don't agree with the outcome but I'm not a brit and I have no say in the matter. The only way I see out of this is if Scotland truly does have the veto authority that they say they are willing to exercise.

[cstanleytech]

15. No, it would be overruling them if the vote was supposed to be binding

and an "understanding" or a verbal agreement doesn't magically change a non binding vote into a binding vote.

[NWCorona]

16. No. It's over ruling the will of the people.

[cstanleytech]

20. Except the UK is a limited Democratic government and if they wanted the vote to be binding they

should have said so.

[Ghost Dog]

22. There is no overall majority

to leave. 52% of a, what was it, 74% turnout is not such a majority. In any case, a two-thirds majority should be required for such profound constitutional change... Especially where that change can also hurt so many neighbours.

... Binding or not, a parliamentary majority vote or votes will be required before any change can be made law.

[vdogg]

23. We would kill to have 74% turnout in a US election.

Usually turnout is far less, yet we still elect Presidents based off of the majority of those voters that turned out...

[Ghost Dog]

26. What does it take to amend or otherwise profoundly change

the US Constitution?

[athena]

14. Agreed. The voting booth is not the place to hold a protest.

Voting for the worse option among the two you're offered is a very imprecise way of protesting. You make yourself indistinguishable from those who actually believe in that option. Much better to stand in front of a government building holding up a sign, or to write letters to politicians or newspapers, or to support liberals at all levels of government.

[Xithras]

21. Because the U.K. isn't the U.S.

The UK has a multiparty parlimentary government that gives the people (and minority parties) FAR greater power than they enjoy in the United States. None of the top parties in Parliament have enough seats to control Parliament on their own, so they MUST maintain political alliances with the smaller parties in order to maintain power. If the Conservative and/or Labour parties attempted to overturn the will of the people, the PEOPLE would use the smaller parties to strip those two of power. With 11 recognized parties in Parliament, the British simply don't do party loyalty the way American's do (a good thing, imho). While the Bremain voters would fight them, the result would we political gridlock and the destruction of the British government. The result of THAT is fairly predictable. If the government cannot function due to gridlock, the Queen will be forced to dissolve parliament and new elections will be held. How do you think the people will vote at that point?

In the United States, the government can ignore us and there isn't much we can do about it other than complain. In a multiparty parliamentary democracy like the one in Britain, ignoring the people would have immediate and disastrous consequences for the parties in power.

[pampango]

9. Good. Brexit is stupid, conservative policy but it was democratically approved. You get what you pay

for.

Conducting a second referendum, even if it were likely to contradict the first one, would understandably enrage and empower the right in the long run and cause even more damage than Brexit will cause. In 5 or 10 or 20 years, perhaps there can be a new referendum but not any time soon.

And the far-right in other European countries want to have "Brexit" votes of their own so there may be no EU to return to - just continent full of highly nationalist countries - Britain First, France First, Germany First. The history of the European continent is not reassuring as to what that will lead to.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. THIS cabinet agrees, a general election is likely soon, next govt may decide differently (n/t)

[brooklynite]

18. If Labour and Conservatives campaigned on "REMAIN"...

...and UKIP campaigned on "LEAVE"...

The results might be equally unsettling.

[The Second Stone]

17. They should treat it as a no confidence vote from the people and call early elections

so that they can put someone up who will say that he/she won't abide by the advisory nature of the vote. Then there will be people who say they will give the notification, and if they get the government majority, then they give the notification.

These people are morons.

I suppose the Queen could state that she would refuse to give her assent to a notification to leave the EU and create a constitutional crisis over whether to dump the monarchy at the same time. The problem is that if she succeeded in getting the exit people to back down, she would strengthen the monarchy, which hasn't done anything useful in the past several centuries.

[pampango]

19. "... somehow with access to the single market". So Boris want 'free trade' without EU regulations

on labor and the environment.

I know Boris has that fantasy of turning the UK into a "neoliberal fantasy island" but he should try to stay in touch with reality

[RAFisher]

25. Maybe next election a LibDems lead coalition could form a pro-EU government

That looks like the only way this could be stopped. Liberal Democrats already came out saying we are the Pro-EU party. But the next election is not until 2020 unless a new one is called before. SNP is pro EU but only runs candidates in Scotland. Labour and Conservatives seem to be mixed on EU and the next election could result in them losing seats to UKIP.