Ygthkb

Why don't you get burned by the wood benches in a sauna?

How do I add a strong "onion flavor" to the biryani (in restaurant style)?

Can you say "leftside right"?

How can I portray body horror and still be sensitive to people with disabilities?

I am a loser when it comes to jobs, what possibilities do I have?

What's the function of the word "ли" in the following contexts?

What does an unprocessed RAW file look like?

Coworker asking me to not bring cakes due to self control issue. What should I do?

Add number in the string after each letter

How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?

Badly designed reimbursement form. What does that say about the company?

Why is Shelob considered evil?

Is Screenshot Time-tracking Common?

Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?

Have any astronauts or cosmonauts died in space?

How do I avoid the "chosen hero" feeling?

Sets which are both Sum-free and Product-free.

Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract

Integral problem. Unsure of the approach.

How many copper coins fit inside a cubic foot?

Is the tritone (A4 / d5) still banned in Roman Catholic music?

If I have Haste cast on me, does it reduce the casting time for my spells that normally take more than a turn to cast?

80-bit collision resistence because of 80-bit x87 registers?

Why write a book when there's a movie in my head?

Is the UK legally prevented from having another referendum on Brexit?

What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?If the UK government did not follow through with Brexit what would happen?What is the cause of the discrepancy between Scottish and English-Welsh results in the Brexit referendum?Was Brexit always going to include a withdrawal from the European Atomic Energy CommunityHow did Labour party members in England vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum?What would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Why is the EU concerned about the UK “unilaterally withdrawing” from a proposed Irish backstop?Why does Brexit threaten the Good Friday Agreement from 1998?Can parties usually withdraw unilaterally from treaties? What's unusual about the binding nature of the “Irish backstop” in the Brexit agreement?Is there any research on when voters made their mind up in the Brexit referendum campaign?

2

Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?

united-kingdom brexit

share|improve this question

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
  
  – Alexei
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
  
  – ouflak
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
  
  – SCFi
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
  
  – JBentley
  38 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?

united-kingdom brexit

share|improve this question

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Possible duplicate of What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?
  
  – Alexei
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Perhaps, but I think that question was asking more for opinions. This question is asking if there are any specific legal barriers. I don't think that's an opinion.
  
  – ouflak
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  They say that when a child is lost it is best to remain still and not wander
  
  – SCFi
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't have the rep, but would propose that this question be moved to law.stackexchange.com
  
  – JBentley
  38 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Is there a legal reason or law(s) that prevents the United Kingdom from having another referendum on Brexit?

united-kingdom brexit

share|improve this question

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

edited 13 mins ago

JBentley

29047

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

New contributor

Mocas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 2 hours ago

MocasMocas

1142

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

8

No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
  
  – John Dallman
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
  
  – Paul Johnson
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
  
  – JBentley
  42 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.

Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.

If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).

In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.

In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
  
  – Flater
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
  
  – JBentley
  44 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
  
  – Flater
  41 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

Mocas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38969%2fis-the-uk-legally-prevented-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

8

No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
  
  – John Dallman
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
  
  – Paul Johnson
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
  
  – JBentley
  42 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  The main impediments to having a referendum at present are the lack of time before the Brexit deadline, and the determination of the Prime Minister not to have one.
  
  – John Dallman
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I'd take out the "desired result" bit. There are many reasons why the UK might hold a second referendum.
  
  – Paul Johnson
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 for addressing the actual question (the legality). I would suggest providing some explanation of the legal process (e.g. Parliamentary sovereignty, all that is required is an Act of parliament, etc.), but on the other hand this is not law.stackexchange, where the question really ought to have been posted.
  
  – JBentley
  42 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

No. The United Kingdom can hold as many referendums on this subject as it likes, as often as it likes. Obviously there are technicalities and bureaucratic measures that have to be accounted for, and some logistical concerns, but there are no legal restrictions to holding the same referendum after the same referendum again and again until the desired result is achieved.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

answered 2 hours ago

ouflakouflak

911410

6

The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.

Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.

If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).

In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.

In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
  
  – Flater
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
  
  – JBentley
  44 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
  
  – Flater
  41 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

6

The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.

Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.

If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).

In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.

In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Well, a second referendum leads to a situation that suggests that the second or first referendum was pointless. Not sure there is a legal term for this situation, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @ouflak: Is that not a catch 22? The way to change the situation is via a referendum, but calling a second referendum inherently invalidates the point of having a referendum, thus defeating the ability to actually change the situation.
  
  – Flater
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Yeah, you could say even that both (and/or all subsequent repeats) referendums could be rendered pointless. I was just trying to relate your answer to a legal point since the OP is asking rather specifically if there is a legal reason barring any subsequent referendum on the same topic.
  
  – ouflak
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you ask the people again, and they give a different answer, that means they have changed their mind. If you do what they requested the second time, you are enacting the will of the people. I agree that people can be accused of not doing so (and probably would be), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that this is true. Democracy isn't frozen in time, it is an ongoing process. Counter example: general elections are held every 5 years, specifically in acknowledgement of the fact that the electorate can change it's mind.
  
  – JBentley
  44 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley: I agree with your comment but the reality is that public perception and being open to rhetoric are actual drawbacks. Just because something is logical does not mean that this is easily proven to (a reasonable majority of) people.
  
  – Flater
  41 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

The main issue with taking another referendum is not so much that they cannot, but rather that it opens the door to being accused of trying again until you get the outcome you want.

Anyone who is loudly in favor of a new referendum can similarly be accused of not wanting to enact the will of the people (i.e. the outcome of the first referendum). You only need a minority of "leave" voters who get offended enough to cause a significant uproar over your so-called undemocratic behavior.

If you ask the people for input, they give you an answer, and then you don't want to follow their answer, what is the point of asking them again? Either you're going to get the same answer (which means the second referendum was pointless), or you're going to get the answer you wanted so you can do the thing (remain in the EU) that you think is better (which means referendums are pointless if you're going to do what you want anyway, instead of listening to the people).

In either case, the second referendum always leads to a situation that suggests that the second referendum is pointless.

In short, the UK currently finds itself in a position where they're headed in a direction that (a significant subset of) people do not want to go, but everyone's apprehensive of changing direction because they don't want the backlash that comes with being the one who proposed changing direction.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

25714