Ygthkb

Resorting data from a multidimensional list

Are one-line email responses considered disrespectful?

Are positive and negative energy from their respective planes inherently good and evil?

Why does this quiz question say that protons and electrons do not combine to form neutrons?

How can I handle players killing my NPC outside of combat?

What is the reward?

Are all power cords made equal?

Minimum Viable Product for RTS game?

How many organs can be harvest without killing prisoners?

Buying a "Used" Router

What is formjacking?

Short story about a man betting a group he could tell a story, and one of them would disappear and the others would not notice

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

Taking an academic pseudonym?

Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis

Graphical modeler calculator missing in QGIS3

How to Build a List from Separate Lists

Why do single electrical receptacles exist?

How can I give a Ranger advantage on a check due to Favored Enemy without spoiling the story for the player?

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

What does "south of due west" mean?

Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?

Integer but not Laurent sequences

What does "don't have a baby" imply or mean in this sentence?

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?

4

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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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.

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  11 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
  
  – JBentley
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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.

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  11 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This is NOT a duplicate of that question. That one is a "why?" question, and this one is a "is it possible?" question.
  
  – JBentley
  8 hours 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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

edited 9 hours ago

JBentley

29047

asked 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

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 11 hours ago

MocasMocas

1243

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

13

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

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 11 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  10 hours 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
  10 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
  
  – Chieron
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 11 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

13

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

13

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  11 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @PaulJohnson, Yeah that is a bit charged. Mulling that edit over....
  
  – ouflak
  10 hours 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
  10 hours 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.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

answered 11 hours ago

ouflakouflak

961411

8

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 11 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  10 hours 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
  10 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
  
  – Chieron
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 11 more comments

8

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 11 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  10 hours 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
  10 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley The reality was (and is) that the question in the first referendum was not one where one can "change ones mind" at will. But of course in a two-party system, the opposition will, almost by definition, oppose any government action - even though many Labour MPs were elected by constituencies which voted "leave".
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @JBentley A general election is not a referendum. Everyone knows that the results of an election can be overturned at the next election. There is no legal process for having regularly repeated elections (or referendums) to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU for the next 5 years, or some other fixed term.
  
  – alephzero
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @alephzero Why was the referendum not something you can change your mind on? During the last two years, if became quite obvious that everything was based on lies and misconceptions. And that the implementation will leave much to be desired. Of course, one should never have started a referendum, if the could be so disastrous. For this special case, it could be argued that the conditions changed and a new referendum is acceptable, now that we all know better.
  
  – Chieron
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 11 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 11 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

share|improve this answer

edited 11 hours ago

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714

answered 11 hours ago

FlaterFlater

27714