Thank you to all who commented today
Thanks everyone. I have really enjoyed this discussion – it’s been a pretty mad few weeks and it’s great to have a forum for debate like this. We will be back next Wednesday with another discussion topic.
In the mean time, if you want to comment further on Brexit or share ideas for coverage then please email me on sarah.marsh@theguardian.com
We are always keen to hear what our readers think and if you feel that certain topics are not covered enough (or covered too much) then let us know. Hope everyone enjoys the rest of the week.
Updated
A commenter has complained that we haven’t heard from enough people who think we shouldn’t have a second referendum. Not sure that’s entirely true, but here’s another commenter who is dead set against the idea.
We have 10 minutes left to debate, any key questions people want answered?
Also I am keen to know what people want to read on this topic - what interests you now about the Brexit debate? What’s not being covered enough? Drop me an email sarah.marsh@theguardian.com
Another commenter from our anonymous form on why they regret voting to leave, and someone who stands by their decision:
Regret
Yes, very much. For several reasons. The vote’s apparent legitimising of intolerant, anti-social racist behaviour. My complete realisation that the Brexit campaigners really do not have a single braincell of a plan. The collapse of politics in Britain. The feeling we are now split down the middle, and possibly sideways, as a country. And finally Nigel Farage’s pathetic, insulting and self serving speech to the EU. I realised he has the attitude of a 4-year-old child in the playground and not someone I should have ever associated my vote with.
Standing by it
I am very optimistic about the future. Project Fear was unfounded and this isn’t “the end of western civilisation”, we are restoring and progressing to a better future. I’m not well off, but it’s worth it to regain our democratic control of our own country. People have sacrificed a lot more than that in the past, to keep our democracy. We’re in a strong position to make good arrangements as we leave the EU, despite initial negotiating stances appearing firm. Britain’s people definitely have the resilience, inventiveness and many other qualities required to make our country a great success again.
The rest of the EU deserve better than our shilly shallying'
A view from Nigel Read, 58, from Surrey, who feels it’s time for us all to move on.
I voted remain and passionately support the EU. I do not believe that there should be a second referendum. Half the population is already upset and upsetting the other half, which is what a second referendum would almost certainly do, would be be decidedly destabilising and something that the establishment will want to avoid. The referendum was set out on the premise of a simple majority of those that voted and leave was the answer. What I fail to understand is why we haven’t invoked article 50 already. The facts were available before the referendum, free movement of people is a pre requisite of being part of the free market. The leave vote was predicated on reducing immigration and stopping our contribution to the EU budget. Consequently we do not have a negotiating position with the EU. The alternatives are completely out or the Norway option which will only be offered on the same terms that Norway have. That’s leave or continue to live with what we have now without any further say in the the processes of the EU. The rest of the EU deserve better than our shilly shallying. It’s not their fault that we don’t even know what we want. In my opinion it will be a disaster but the people have spoken.
Updated
A view from someone who participated in the 1975 referendum, which was won by the ‘marketeers’. In comments that in no way echo the 2016 version, a certain Margaret Thatcher called Labour’s 1975 vote “a tactical device to get over a split in their own party” and of the government being “incapable of making a decision” and “passing the buck to the people”.
I voted not to join in the last referendum,but accepted the result.
The remain camp should the same this time.
Was turnout high enough?
I would like to start by re-framing the first referendum. Our population is around 65 million. Those eligible to vote were around 47m. Around 34m voted. The outcome was that 17+m were able to trigger the exit for 65m and the involuntary loss of EU citizenship for around 48m people.
Given that neither side in the run-up to the election could produce reliable or useable data for the voters, all that was possible for the Leavers in particular was a gut feel. The Remainers also could only make an emotional 'it will be a disaster if we leave' case rather than being able to give a data driven case for staying.
So, emotionally, a minority of the UK citizens voted to leave and, in my opinion, it should stand simply as a measure of how people feel. Before we use that feeling as the basis for acting to deprive 65m people of all (good and bad) that it means to be an EU citizen, I think some more thoughtful case needs to be made. I think that a cross-party working group should scope the actual consequences of leaving and ask again, now that you know the reality, do you want to turn your gut-feel from the first referendum into the action necessary to leave the EU.
I regret signing a petition for another referendum
I voted remain, I put posters in my windows and sent one to a friend in East Sussex, where I pictured it preaching to the unconverted. Three days before the vote I spent an hour outside a tube station handing out stickers. I cried about last week’s referendum result and the next day I signed the petition calling for a rerun with different rules.
I regretted this a few hours later, around the same time the manager of a local community centre tweeted “The people have spoken, their voices heard, but oh sorry you’re the wrong type of people and the majority no longer counts. Let’s go round two”.
You can’t unsign a petition, but I’m not sure I would if I could. I never expected it to change anything and signed because I was upset. I’m still upset but now I don’t think another referendum is the answer.
But nor do I think it is certain that the UK will leave the EU. Many or most leave voters may have known what they were doing, but I think they were sold a lie. That lie is that the free movement of people can be stopped, while the UK economy continues to work along more or less the same lines as it does now.
I hope there will be a moment of reckoning for the pushers of this deluded thinking. Events are so chaotic, my mind changes all the time. But right now I hope the next general election will provide an opportunity for people, if they wish to, to rethink. Before this, 16-18 year-olds much be enfranchised and somehow a far higher proportion of 18-24 year olds than voted in the referendum must be persuaded to vote. Proportional representation, as I have written elsewhere on the site today, would help.
'The referendum gave a voice to those normally ignored by the political system'
Here’s an original take. This reader thinks we should have a second referendum - but that the second referendum should be on how we are to leave, not whether we should.
The UK has voted to leave by the slimiest of majorities but the result has been announced worldwide and it’s damning. Do people seriously think we can go back to EU with an overturned result and continue on as if nothing happened? It changes everything. This decision to leave must be honoured and we British must make the best of it. The referendum gave a voice to those normally ignored by the political system. Every vote mattered, no matter where that vote came from. And we voted for change.
So now we have to use democracy to reunite our divided nation. The only referendum to be held now is to define how we leave, since that detail has been ignored until now.
There has been a lot written on the rise of racist and xenophobic attacks in the past week. This commenter fears that a second referendum would merely give further succour to the far right.
I think it would be a terrible idea. If you think the racist thugs - NOT Brexit voters but the tiny group of the extreme right - that have been carrying out racist attacks have been emboldened when they won a vote and feel euphoric, imagine what they would do if they narrowly lost a vote in a second referendum and feel mightily, uncontrollably aggrieved. We would see an explosion in attacks on minorities, along with possibly rioting and violence on the streets. I think Brexit has acted as a release valve for pent up frustrations and the madness will gradually subside if we can negotiate restrictions to freedom of movement. If we hinder that process, the ugliness that would ensue would be a greater price to society than any hit to GDP. Let's just move forward and get the best deal for the UK.
Updated
Also want to highlight this comment - does the fact that the campaign was not fought fairly make a difference? Should people get a chance to vote again on the fact?
I don't think the campaign was fought fairly, leaving too many people confused about the truth about what the EU does and how it affected things in the UK. Many people thought (and I know as I volunteer at a community centre and had conversations with people about this) that a leave vote would lead to more money to for the NHS, more housing and a halt to immigration... by which they mean refugees or economic migrants coming on boats via people smugglers. Not many people seemed to understand the role the EU have played on cleaning up the environment; e.g. we now have blue flag beaches, a halt to the building of polluting incinerators and more recycling. We have better workers rights etc. Also we have the upsurge of racism here as a direct result of voting out, this coupled with the rise in of right wing politics in other countries in the EU does not bode well for the world. I grew up believing that the idea was to work towards a world peace, less hunger etc and I am not naive enough to believe that the whole word can be some kind of Utopian idyll but there is not any harm on trying is there? Isn't that the point in life, to make it a better place for everyone or thereby better for yourself?
This is a very interesting comment:
The problem is the referendum was never framed correctly; there was no question of to what extent we should leave the EU, as we are all (now) aware it is not a binary choice, and the trading block and free movement (the largest motivator to vote leave) are inextricably linked. Many voters were not aware of this. Essentially the concept of the EU and the terms of our exit were never defined so what precisely people voted for is unknown.
A second referendum could only occur with clearly delineated terms (which would likely mean a complex and lengthy ballot), and a clear and honest campaign from both sides. I don’t believe either will happen.Regardless parliament is sovereign and we are a representative democracy, it is their decision and I don’t agree with putting issues as complex as this to referendum. Given that our current parliament will not invoke article 50 and has reached a stalemate with the electorate, an election should be held as soon as possible and parties should campaign on a remain or leave platform to establish a definitive mandate in either direction.
'Prolonged uncertainty will affect the entire continent'
A commenter in Spain, who is a British citizen but was unable to vote, thinks that speed is now of the essence.
As a British citizen in Spain who'll be very much affected by the referendum (in which I had no vote) I just want the UK to get out as fast as possible now.
Brexit may already have delivered Spain into the hands of a corrupt, right-wing government for four years, and prolonged uncertainty will affect the entire continent.
I need to know where I, my son, the business I work for and my mother in Scotland stand, and I need to know as soon as possible. Reversing the result can only prolong that uncertainty.
Britain is dithering on the threshold of a party it's finally made up its mind to leave after years of moaning and demanding special treatment. Scram.
Updated
'People treated their vote carelessly'
So far this debate has been as divisive as the EU referendum itself. So it’s only right that I share a view from someone - a Remain voter, currently in Dublin - who can see both sides on this one.
I’m torn to be quite honest. A second referendum would undermine the result of the first, and the process of holding a referendum in the first place. Plus, unless the result changed to a landslide victory for either side, the result would only stand to be contested again. Then again, it seems very clear to me that some people treated their vote carelessly - apathy, the lies of the Leave campaign, and limited information on the basics of the decision really didn’t help here. The biggest issue, however, is the broken system which left many feeling their vote wouldn’t even count. It’s sad to see that the people hurt by previous government cuts were convinced to direct their anger at the EU, instead of at the Conservative party that caused this hardship in the first place. Further cuts post-Brexit will only worsen this, and further divide the nation.
Updated
A second referendum would be a dangerous move
Second referendums are not as rare as they may seem. In the last 20 or so years, at least four referendums have been ignored or people have voted on them again – as outlined, ironically, in leave campaigner Daniel Hannan’s book Why Vote Leave.
That said, a second EU referendum would be a dangerous move. The vote was won on one key issue: immigration. Although a legitimate discussion point, and one that must be addressed, the leave campaign has caused division based on nationality, race and culture to be legitimised. Since the vote, there has been a spate of racially motivated attacks, including offensive leaflets targeting Poles, and graffiti on a Polish cultural centre in London. As well as raft of unverified reports on social media.
If we do go against popular public opinion it must be handled extremely carefully. If a second referendum is seen to be called by disgruntled metropolitan remainers “who can’t accept democracy”, it will spark more anger and violence.
We must not leave the European Union, but a second referendum cannot put back in the box what has now been unleashed.
Another disillusioned leave voter from Sunderland called for a second referendum via our anonymous form:
I now regret my decision to vote leave; I hope that there is a second referendum either directly, or via a general election where an opposition party can garner enough popular support on the pledge to remain in the EU. I am also appalled that the success of vote leave has, to some members of our society, given them a legitimate to be openly discriminatory against others. I worry for our future.
'It’s a terrible mistake but a beautiful demonstration of democracy'
Interesting take here, from a Remain voter in Oxford:
No second referendum, unless something big changes to justify it. It’s a terrible mistake but a beautiful demonstration of democracy.
The poorer, isolated, and marginalised voted against the near universal guidance of leading figures. This proves that in the UK there is no shadowy ruling elite determining events but everyone’s vote has the same value.
Interesting comment in our form from a regretful leave voter, who wants a second referendum:
I regret voting leave. I didn’t realise how bad it would be for the economy. I thought the prime minister was lying. Looks like we won’t get trade without freedom of movement anyway and Nigel Farage said that the £350m to the NHS was a lie . I’m furious and want to take my vote back!
Updated
A second referendum? Palpably absurd, according to these Leave voters, who warn of the dangers of ignoring a substantial poll. The people are sovereign as far as a referendum is concerned.
A 57 year old from Nottingham:
No. The impact on our democracy of a decision that the first referendum can be ignored if the “right” people do not like the result, and that the popular vote is a waste of time unless it produces the result the establishment wants, will further alienate the electorate. Why vote for anything if the result is going to be decided by the in crowd no matter how the population vote?
A 23 year old from Lincolnshire:
People need to learn to deal with the consequences. We voted out, now we need to start making the long winded process of actually coming out of the EU. This is democracy and some win and some lose. Nobody likes to lose, but instead of making a huge fuss about it, we should all come together to build a better future for our generation and our younger generation.
Ian, a 50 year old from Surrey:
Can we just get on with it now. I believe we need a unity government, a coalition of all parties, fairly represented to take us through the transition. Happy to keep Article 50 in our back pocket until we are ready to execute.
Comment are now open for this debate, so please share your views below the line. Thank you
There has been talk of Brexit voters regretting their decision:
Does this mean that there should be a second referendum? If there was a consensus that people wanted to change their mind would it make you more likely to call for one?
I am really keen for leave voters views on this:
Looking forward to opening comments in 10 minutes.
Updated
We have some responses from our form already. A number make reference to Nigel Farage’s pre-Brexit claims that a second EU vote would be needed if Remain won the referendum by a narrow margin.
“Nigel Farage clearly stated beforehand that a 52/48 split would not end the matter. The idea that it now should just because Leave won, then denied everything they promised, is ridiculous,” says Charles, a reader from Bristol.
Updated
A roundup of tweets on this topic:
Former Head of Civil Service Lord Butler agrees we need a second referendum on a proper plan https://t.co/QLklLDMI1D pic.twitter.com/u2eOM9yYqD
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 28, 2016
Leadership contenders @Conservatives
— Sayeeda Warsi (@SayeedaWarsi) June 28, 2016
1. Will you trigger Art 50?
2. If yes when?
3. Will you entertain a second referendum?#nomoregames
BREAKING: Richard Branson tells @GMB "we are heading towards disaster" & there should be a second referendum. "Brexit facts were inaccurate"
— PHILIPPA TOMSON (@PipTomson) June 28, 2016
We also got a statement from health secretary Jeremy Hunt ahead of the debate today. He said:
On Friday the country took the hugely significant decision to leave the European Union – and now that the people have spoken, parliament needs to listen. Britain must and will leave the EU – but my focus now is how we determine our best national future. I believe that we must preserve our status as the world’s greatest trading nation by remaining in the single market; that brings jobs and prosperity but also underpins our status as an open, liberal society. By negotiating with EU leaders before we invoke Article 50, we can get a deal which addresses concerns on immigration and freedom of movement rules, one which we can then ask the British people for their democratic endorsement of.”
Say no to a second referendum
A comment from professor Stephen Tierney, Edinburgh University, author of Constitutional Referendums
There should not be a second referendum. The process was lawful, democratic, well-run and fully in line with the highest international standards for direct democracy. The result is one which citizens must agree to, even if it is not one they agree with.
Referendums should be reserved for issues of the highest importance and should be infrequent. This helps stimulate the engagement of citizens and provide a careful balance between the norm of representative government and the exception of direct democracy. People knew they were making a land-mark decision on 23 June.
There is also the danger of instability. If remain won the second referendum they would have to concede that a euro-sceptical government would subsequently be entitled to hold further referendums at regular intervals. The European Union would no doubt, and correctly, have no truck with such an unsettling scenario. Similarly, who could then deny the entitlement of the Scottish government to hold a referendum on independence whenever it wished (once a year perhaps)?
It would be a constitutional nightmare as well as a democratic travesty for the referendum result not to be faithfully implemented simply because many of us don’t like it.
Itching to join in with the debate, but lacking in a Guardian commenting account? You have two options: one, sign up for one here. Two: fill out this form. We’ll be sharing a selection of your responses above the line, so keep it punchy.
Message from David Lammy MP today
David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, has this to say about our debate topic:
I will continue to make the case for a second vote because there is no exit plan. It’s not too late to stop this and I’ve made my position clear on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the young people of this country.
Before Article 50 is invoked the leave campaign will have to come up with a plan and then that plan will have to be voted on either in Parliament or through a second referendum.
There is no way under any circumstances that I will be voting for Brexit when Article 50 comes before Parliament.
Of course we cannot!
Of course we can’t have a second referendum. Much of the carping that has followed the Brexit camp’s narrow victory last week has focused on that small differential between leave and remain. But a call for a new threshold – say two-thirds, a majority of registered voters, or a consensus among the nations – is too little too late. If people wanted that they should have campaigned for it while David Cameron was drawing up his referendum plans. They didn’t – largely because of the arrogance among EU supporters that they would win any subsequent vote. You can be sure that had Cameron thought there was a realistic chance of defeat he would have put some mechanism in there to ensure he couldn’t lose. After all, it’s hard to argue that this is not a monumental constitutional change, and it’s entirely appropriate such a change should need more than just a simple majority. But he did not. And people were not up in arms about it at the time. Now – were the sore losers to simply call a second referendum, there would quite rightly be uproar among those voters who opted to depart the Union, especially those that already feel part of the left behind.
So EU supporters, what’s it to be? Leave Europe and come up with the best compromise we can to protect our rights, our economy and our relationship with our neighbours– or win a contentious rerun, stay in the EU, but alienate half the country? Neither is ideal, but one seems far more likely to cause a wave of civil unrest than the other.
Interesting comments from The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour today on whether a second referendum is possible:
Scenarios for a second referendum
There is also pressure to hold a second referendum. Few UK politicians – fearful of challenging the verdict of an already angry electorate – will articulate such an argument in public. But Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has boldly made the case for a second referendum or another general election on the negotiated terms of exit. Robin Butler, the former head of the civil service, has suggested the same.
Hammond, the foreign secretary, has said the new prime minister will need to think about the democratic legitimacy of the terms of Brexit. At one point even Johnson, and Dominic Cummings, the director of the Vote Leave campaign, made the case for a second referendum on the terms of a Brexit.
Despite the Fixed-Term Parliament Act requiring a parliament to last five years, it is possible for an early election to be called if enough politicians support this.
For the sake of simplicity, three scenarios could then follow. In the first, Johnson wins the election, negotiates the terms of the UK’s departure, puts them to a referendum and they are endorsed. Some form of access to the single market and some deal on free movement – the two central issues – are agreed. It is a bespoke British deal. Britain remains outside the EU but only just.
What might trigger a second referendum?
Dr Peter Paul Catterall, a constitutional expert from the University of Westminster, has written this comment for our debate:
Lots of people on the leave side are now complaining that remainers are sore losers, as if this was some kind of football match. It is, of course, much more momentous than that, hence the petition calling for a second referendum. Parliamentarians are, however, generally taking the view that they are politically (though not constitutionally) bound to respect the verdict of 23 June. In what circumstances might this view change?
The petition, while it sends out a signal of concern, is unlikely to get anywhere near the numbers that might suggest a second vote is needed. Parliamentarians have to take note of it, but not to respond.
Parliament does, however, have the deal with the fact there is no mandate for how to implement Brexit. The leave side was very careful to avoid discussing this in anything but the vaguest terms. Calling for a second referendum as and when these terms become clearer is entirely reasonable.
Before that stage is reached, however, there may already be a need for a general election, not least to give the incoming government a mandate for the terms on which Brexit might be negotiated. What happens if it then fails to achieve a majority? A change of government could possibly trigger a second referendum, particularly if the general election verdict suggested that the public mood had shifted. This is a possibility. However, with the Labour party in disarray, there is the real risk that a general election might see a shift towards the hard right instead, which would reinforce the referendum verdict.
Finding a way to trigger a second referendum is not impossible, because these are all matters of politics, rather than constitutional rules. However, none of the scenarios sketched out above is either likely to happen or easy to achieve. That does not mean people should not try. There is also certainly a need for close scrutiny of howsoever those people leading the next government, who secured a leave vote through misrepresentation and fear, propose to take us out of the EU and what, if anything, they intend to put in its place.
Welcome to the debate
Should we have a second referendum? It’s a question that’s been floating around (ironically) ever since we voted out. But is it really possible? And if so, is it fair?
In terms of the law, it is possible to hold a second referendum and the decision of this one is not legally binding, which means it could be overturned in parliament by MPs.
But what about the moral argument for another referendum? Some argue that the EU referendum was won on lies and people need to vote again as the reality of leaving the EU – and it’s repercussions for the economy and our union with Scotland – sink in. More than four million people have now added their names to a petition calling for a rerun of out vote on the EU.
Jeremy Hunt – perhaps not the voice of reason remainers were hoping for – agrees. He came out yesterday saying that people should have their say on the terms of the UK’s exit deal – especially given that leave campaigners claimed that the UK could get access to the single market without having to accept free movement, something EU leaders say is unlikely. Hunt argues that this should be either through a general election or a second referendum.
However, David Cameron has already ruled out a second referendum, saying in parliament: “There can be no doubt about the result - I am clear and cabinet agreed this morning that the decision must be accepted and the process of implementing it in the best way must begin ... we have a fundamental responsibility to bring country together.”
Others argue that democracy has spoken and another referendum would cause more chasms and rifts. After all, half of the people in the UK have made a decision to leave.
Author Mark Lynas, writing for his blog, said: “[A second referendum] isn’t democracy – it’s explicitly anti-democratic in aiming to overturn the popular vote on the basis of people turning up physically in London for a rally. That way leads to mob rule. (I’d be in favour of a rally, by the way, but on different principles outlined below.)
“The people have spoken, and the verdict was leave. Yes, they were lied to about the NHS and immigration. But the people are sovereign and their vote must stand. We are leaving the EU. Now we need to focus on what comes next.”
Zoe Williams said today on The Guardian: “A second referendum would be a bad idea for exactly the same reason the first one was: let’s say the regrexiteers were numerous enough to be decisive, and the decision was reversed by the same margin, give or take. Those 48% of people would be exactly as angry as we are now, and have no recourse to anything unless we carry on this torture forever.”
What do you think? Share your views with us today from 12pm-2pm and we will update the live blog this morning with various views on this topic. Look forward to debating.
If the government and establishment decided to overturn the referendum vote it would destroy the political system and voters would turn their backs on politics… elections would be pointless because no one would take the effort to vote. People don`t exactly have trust in politicians to start with after the expenses scandal & they were stupid enough to overturn a democratic vote the public would not forget it & at the first opportunity overwhelmingly vote them out of office! Politicians should abide by the result as should the voters even if that vote wasn`t the result they wanted… it was democratically arrived at and we must all respect that!