[jlavine]

The promises of Parliament and the will of the people regarding Brexit were about as clear as it gets in any democracy. Parliament voted to have the referendum. The referendum was simply and clearly expressed (though not at all detailed), each side had months to state their case, and the results were uncontroversial. Parliament followed the referendum with a vote to trigger Article 50. Subsequent elections resulted in a pro-Brexit government. What more could you possibly want in a democracy? To reverse course now - or to just keep having a referendum or revotes until the "right" result is achieved - would express total contempt and disregard for democracy itself. Such total disregard for the will of the people occurred following referenda on the EU Constitution in France and Ireland. The EU's anti-democratic actions were one of the main arguments of the Brexiteers.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> To reverse course now - or to just keep having a referendum or revotes until the "right" result is achieved - would express total contempt and disregard for democracy itself.

Ah, yes. There is no democratic way to overturn a democratically taken decision. And it is the peple who are sovereign, not Parliament. That's how the story goes.

Many UK citizens who voted Remain have a poor understanding of the procedures of their own democracy. This is the fault of the political class of course, who have long wished to keep their voters misinformed and apathetic, the better to control them. Inevitably, this is now coming back to bite them. Along with everyone else.

For the record: in the UK, Parliament is sovereign (i.e. they can do whatever they decide) and democratically taken decisions are routinely overturned, e.g. when a new government is elected every 5 ish years.

[jlavine]

I certainly wasn't advocating for any sovereignty of the people outside of or above Parliament. The point is that Parliamentary elections and Parliamentary votes have aligned with the pro-Brexit result of the referendum.

Parliament voted to trigger article 50, and subsequent elections (still very recent) resulted in a pro-Brexit government.

The only democratic way now for Parliament to overturn the democratic decision on Brexit would be for a party to run on an anti-Brexit platform and win the next elections, then take a vote to reverse course. But, to repeat, there just were elections, this didn't happen, and nothing fundamentally new has happened since the elections that would lead to any change if elections were held again now.

[BerislavLopac]

> each side had months to state their case

With one side directly and openly lying, and breaking funding laws in the process.

> and the results were uncontroversial

Anything BUT controversial.

[jlavine]

>> each side had months to state their case

> With one side directly and openly lying, and breaking funding laws in the process.

Both sides lied and, even more so, misled, and the Remain side had the bullhorn of the government and media on their side. Such lying and misleading happens in every vote everywhere. The premise of democracy is that, with a free press and open debate, voters are capable of sorting through competing claims and deciding. The Brexit debate was as free and fair as it has ever gotten anywhere.

>> and the results were uncontroversial

> Anything BUT controversial.

I've heard universal consensus that the referendum votes were collected and counted fairly. The implications are what have been controversial, not the results of the referendum itself.