Proposed new "brexit" referendum: Errors, fallacies, half-truths and skulduggery: Part 1

Theresa May's government attempts to evade and fight off a new "people's vote" about UK and EU

The case for a new referendum, to decide whether or not to accept the final "deal" or conditions for leaving the EU, has been and remains very strong. We argued the case for this very soon after the (to many) surprising result of the 2016 ballot, following a principle which we had proposed and illustrated for the Scottish independence referendum of 2014. The principle: for complex and important international treaty change, first mandate the government to negotiate, then hold a second, binding referendum to decide if the negotiated terms are acceptable. The latter argument for a second brexit referendum is far stronger than Theresa May's current (17th Dec. 2018) claim that holding a second ballot would shake trust in our democracy, in part because (she argues) the first result was binding ("brexit means brexit"). It is difficult to know if she has lied here or if like her well known predecessor she has been "economical with the truth". The 2016 referendum, according to our UK  constitution, was designed to advise Parliament and government, it was not legally binding. More important, citizens could not possibly know in 2016 what "brexit" would turn out to be and now that we know more the electorate should obtain the right to decide if the terms for leaving the EU are acceptable. It is nonsense to say, like the prime minister, that this ballot would be a betrayal of democracy: On the contrary, for the UK it would be a rare example of better democracy.

Part the next, to follow:

Negative role of the largest political parties, who for many months they have hindered the people's right to take the final, definitive, sovereign decision about brexit.
a. Labour party


Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB  Link to site index plus comments about brexit from a democratic perspective.