[ardillaroja]

But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people?

At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so.

There's a reason we'd never see this in a referendum:

What should the income tax rate be for UK citizens? [ ] 0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 40%

[lmm]

> But let's say the 48% that voted to remain in the EU had grown to say 55% that didn't like the sound of the Brexit deal being hashed out and would prefer the status quo. Would it be reasonable for our politicians to try and use the levers of government to reverse course to represent the new will of the people?

You can't keep asking the people until they give the answer you want and then seize on that. Holding another referendum after say 10 years have passed seems reasonable.

> At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so.

I agree. But, Cameron having chosen to hold the referendum, his party is duty-bound to implement its results.

[BerislavLopac]

> his party is duty-bound to implement its results

And what are the results? To leave with no deal?

In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.

[lmm]

> And what are the results? To leave with no deal?

To leave the European Union one way or another, since that was the question they asked and the answer they got. With whatever deal they believe best for the country and its people, which may or may not end up being no deal.

> In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.

The government's legal obligations come from its duty to the people, not the other way around.

[NeedMoreTea]

Until the 1973 Northern Ireland referendum they generally were seen as unconstitutional throughout our history. Thatcher famously agreed with Atlee that referenda were a device of dictators and demagogues[0].

There is nothing to prevent any government, or any future government going against a referendum result. Parliamentary sovereignty means no restriction can be placed on any future administration changing the law.

[0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2015/10/15/herding-...

[pjc50]

> The government's legal obligations come from its duty to the people

There is no such obligation in UK law. Partly because we're a constitutional monarchy.

[lmm]

Again, though, the law is a formalisation - an abstraction, a simplification - of people's relationships and behaviours. The Queen signs the laws written by the people's representatives not because she's legally obliged to but because she realises that it's her duty as head of state on a level far more fundamental than the written code of laws (and, ultimately, because if she didn't we'd have a second civil war).

[maxerickson]

Is that a legal argument or are you saying that repeated votes would be ugly politics?