Sfrgttk

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

Can you say "leftside right"?

Have any astronauts or cosmonauts died in space?

How can changes in personality/values of a person who turned into a vampire be explained?

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

What is formjacking?

Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis

Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?

Are all power cords made equal?

How can I differentiate duration vs starting time

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

Cryptic cross... with words

Is it common to refer to someone as "Prof. Dr. [LastName]"?

Taking an academic pseudonym?

Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?

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

Dot product with a constant

What does @ mean in a hostname in DNS configuration?

How can I make my enemies feel real and make combat more engaging?

Do the speed limit reductions due to pollution also apply to electric cars in France?

typeof generic and casted type

3D buried view in Tikz

Spells that would be effective against a Modern Day army but would NOT destroy a fantasy one

Is layered encryption more secure than long passwords?

What legally stops the UK from having another referendum on Brexit

What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What are the UK's “constitutional requirements” for Article 50 notification of withdrawal from EU?Is it difficult for Scotland to become a member of the EU if they gain independence from the UK following BrexitWhy is the British government waiting until March 29th to officially Brexit?Is there a good breakdown by ethnicity (white British, etc.) of how people voted in the Brexit referendum, both in Britain as a whole and in London?How did Labour party members in England vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum?What would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?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?

1

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

united-kingdom brexit

share

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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
  1 hour 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
  1 hour 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
  20 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

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

united-kingdom brexit

share

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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
  1 hour 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
  1 hour 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
  20 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

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

edited 42 mins ago

ouflak

901410

asked 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

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 1 hour ago

MocasMocas

1092

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

7

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 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  50 mins 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
  24 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

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

24714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  51 mins 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
  48 mins 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
  45 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  26 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  23 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

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%2fwhat-legally-stops-the-uk-from-having-another-referendum-on-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

7

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 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  50 mins 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
  24 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

7

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 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  50 mins 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
  24 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 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

answered 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

answered 1 hour ago

ouflakouflak

901410

5

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

24714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  51 mins 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
  48 mins 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
  45 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  26 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  23 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

5

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

24714

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  51 mins 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
  48 mins 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
  45 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  26 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  23 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

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

24714

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

24714

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

24714

answered 1 hour ago

FlaterFlater

24714