I understand the argument against “overturning” the referendum result. You can’t just say, I know you voted for this but we’re not going to do it. So it’s not hard to argue, as here, that we shouldn’t “overturn” the result.
But presenting the argument in that way avoids the much more difficult point. When we know what Brexit will actually mean, as opposed to what it might possibly mean, aren’t we entitled to check that the people who voted for it, or against it, are still of the same mind?
So I don’t support “overturning” the referendum result. But I strongly support allowing people to reaffirm or otherwise if they still want what they voted for once they know what it will actually mean in practice, through a referendum on the terms negotiated by the government. Not only do I think this is justified in principle, but the prospect would create the best possible incentives for the government to get a settlement that works for the majority. And this time, it could be extended to include 16–18 year olds and ensure all British citizens living abroad got the chance to vote.
I struggle to see why that would be anti democratic; many would argue that a further vote on a more representative franchise, whichever way it went, would be both democratic and much more robust than what we had in 2016. And if the terms are good enough, and the government has been able to craft a Brexit that works for the majority, fine. What is not fine, and to my mind undemocratic, is an unfettered minority government propped up by a party with even less votes than the tiny majority that voted for Brexit negotiating away the rights of all British citizens.
Btw, my birth name was “Democratis”….
