Do they? The one deal that was completed by the government and the EU was voted down multiple times in the commons and the government is now trying to work towards something else, so they still don't know exactly what's on offer.It allows people to make a more informed decision cause no matter the stance that people had in 2016, now they know exactly, what kind of deal they got and what it would mean for their country.
Not to mention, let's say Leave win and that's it decided. Except no, the binary option still doesn't allow for anyone to know whether leave meant hard brexit, soft brexit, May's deal, new deal, no deal, and everything and anything in between. We'd be right back where we started with everyone arguing about what leave actually meant, at which point there'd be cries for a new referendum to make the decision, and the libdems insisting that we should still revoke the whole thing because they don't care what people actually want.
By unnecessary I mean it's adding another step to the process and still probably won't get us any closer to the goal.I never said it's a necessity, but I do not think it's illegitimate to reaffirm the public opinion on this matter. If the majority still wants out, that means the public (and leaver-politicians) can put more pressure on parliament to go through with it.
No, confirmatory is just what it is. You're holding a second referendum to confirm the result of the first one. Even if you want to pretend that it's complete independent and separate, that's impossible because we're still in the shadow of the first.Confirmatory vote sounds like the referendum was legally binding. A new referendum would be just that: another, new referendum.
I don't see why there should be any requirement to hold it with the "same set of people" or turnout rate or whatever.
If no one is listening to the first one, so you're having a second to make people listen to the first once, you're using one to legitimize the other.I never said it needs to be legitimized by another one. It is legitimate as is. And in my eyes, just as legitimate as a new one would be.
I'm was asking because it shows that the remain side are just as nervous and insecure as you think leavers are.I guess they want to retain the status quo, since they are most likely afraid that after an election, their influence might be reduced. That and they might fear that a general election would waste too much time with proceedings (which would be kind of ironic). I don't really care and I don't know why it matters tbh.
So now it is confirmatory?A referendum is asking the public for their opinion. If they changed their opinion, that old referendum no longer matters, since you can't go "This is what the people want", because of the people now evidently want something else.
If they want the same thing, the confirmation (and thus the original decision) still matters.
What if they change their opinion in another few years? And again after that?
That is weird.It's also kind of weird to argue in favor of something that I don't even want - it's just a matter of principle, I guess.
Agreed.The UK parliament is doing a piss poor job and the people suffer for it. At this point, I hope October 31 rolls around and the EU just kicks the UK out. Any extension would be a waste of time.