And that would be very interesting. It would allow us hellbent Remainers to have some peace of mind that the country did indeed want to leave the EU.

And in doing so kissing goodbye to Labour as a serious political force and ushering in perpetual Tory government.

Assuming Labour took an anti-Brexit platform (as they would need to to differentiate themselves from the Tories) then it rather depends on the mood of nation towards Brexit at that time.

I'm of the opinion that the peak refugee crisis in June, and anti-EU bombast (Nigel, Boris, Gove et al) brought about something of a hysteria, and tipped the vote to OUT. If Corbyn actually stepped up to the plate second time around, and people were a bit more sensitive to the Brexit downsides, Labour might indeed get in. I've never voted Labour, but I would do so if it meant staying within the EU.

Brexit has been brewing ever since Mrs Thatcher made that speech in the Commons in 1990.


Europe has been the undoing of the last three Conservative Prime Ministers including Mr Cameron who arrogantly thought he could ride that tiger right up until it turned around and took his face off. Mrs May smartly stayed a silent Remainer for that very reason.

If Labour decided to take an anti-Brexit position in spite of the referendum result, and UKIP could stop punching each other long enough to resemble an actual political party, then they would be reduced to a rump of North London constituencies.

Well, Britain, Europe and the world has changed quite a bit in the 26 years since Maggie made that speech. Not that any of the older generation that have sold the youngsters down the river would notice. What the pro-EU campaign needs to a Europhile version of Nigel Farage to barrack the population and political class back into the 21st century. IMO.

So the abrogation of political and economic powers to the hegemony of centralized super-state run by elites is a backward step? I thought the diffusion of concentrated power was a more modern outlook or approach. Should we just give up and cede all of our agency and authority to multinational corporations and international financial institutions?

I'm not so sure about that. From when the vote was known it was stated - or at least assumed - that Parliament would be voting on the issue, because there was discussion about whether MPs would actually vote for it given the majority of them were in favour of staying in. There had been lots of talk about there being nothing to say it was binding, hence the idea that MPs could vote against.

It's the government saying they'd decide when it happened and not Parliament that prompted the action not some attempt at frustrating the government. If it was going to go to Parliament as expected, there would have been no attempt via the courts.

Within a couple of days of the result there was a poll that suggested that those people who "didn't really mean it" voting the opposite way would have reversed the result. And that was without the admission that the £350m for the NHS was a lie.

Add in the £ which slumped overnight on the result and just saw a big increase with the news that MPS will have a say after all; the potential break up of the Kingdom; all the uncertainty because nobody is saying how it will happen etc

Then there's the fact that the Prime Minister, no less, is on record actually saying it's a bad thing....

...well, all in all, I'd say it was far from conclusive that the result would be repeated.

As I've said before, even trivial game shows on TV ask "is that your final answer?"

Well, if the Act contained a sensible process (why wouldn't it?) and the HoL reject it, I can't imagine many of the electorate will see it as anything other than "elites rejecting the will of the electorate" and, if that occurred, a bold PM may decided to enact legislation that curtailed the ability of the unelected second chamber to prevent the enactment of laws put forward by the lower chamber.

A Conservative MP who has resigned after criticising Theresa May’s handling of the Brexit process has said he could no longer live with being labelled a Conservative.

Stephen Phillips, who voted for Britain to leave the EU, was unhappy that the government had not planned to consult parliament on the Brexit process.

There's a reason we have the Westminster Parliamentary system of Government and why it has been emulated in many other countries. It works...most of the time.

Just imagine if democratic societies used a referendum for every decision...it would eliminate the need for politicians but how many civil servants to administer and how corrupt the opportunity.....

Some form of Proportional Representation is used around the world but I'm not sure it's any better than the UK system of Parliament....but maybe a House of Lords being elected, but not represented by political parties, may work better and appear more transparent.

If the concern is multinationals and big banks, a larger international political system is a counter balance. Putting up a fence with European neighbours is a backward step.

It is certainly being framed that way, and hard core Brexit factions (Wesminster, media, etc.) are setting that tone. The man on the street in Barnsley or Harlow is right pissed. Instead, the tone should be that the elite is questioning the will of the electorate. As Bristol said, is that your final answer.

The fact that so many are now questioning the integrity of the high court judges, and even imploring that they be more political, further evidences the widespread ignorance in the electorate.

As Ken Clarke has pointed out, if you asked the electorate whether we should invest in the National Gallery or a theme park, you would probably end up with a theme park.

The referendum was a mistake, the result may have been an error, the impact is enormous, and therefore at very least, the country should be certain it wants to travel down this rocky path.

As Sir Humphrey once said... .....Methinks, like Ken Clarke, you're betraying your elitest roots. What is wrong with theme parks?

I suspect you argue that the referendum was a mistake simply because you don't like the result, and like a number of other referenda, you think that this permits you to keep holding them until you get a different result. The Sir Humphreys of the world would argue that the humble man on the Clapham Omnibus is too ignorant to allow him to determine his own fate while there are others, eminently better qualified, to do this for him.

It's thinking like this that has probably nailed shut the referendum coffin. Why subject the country to the purest form of democracy when the electorate can't be trusted to make the right democratic decision?

I'm not happy with the outcome. It has cost me financially, but I respect the decision making process and accept the result. I understand that the path ahead is uncertain but as I step off the Clapham Omnibus, I wave to my fellow travellers, who incidently continue to smile.

Is this knuckle dragging enough for you?

US sports presenter Gina Miller mistaken target of online Brexit abuse
*shakes head*