That's pure bullshit. So you're not allowed to vote twice about something? You are aware there were already 2 Brexit votes before 2016? By your own theory there shouldn't have been yet another Brexit vote

Or, even worse, that after an election all Ministers, mayors and other politicians voted into office would be elected for life as no second vote is allowed by your rules.

That's quite a conspiracy theory. You do realise that the the largest circulation of print media in the UK has been for anti-EU for well over a decade?

You seem to be much more out of touch with the principles of democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. If they want to overturn a previous result, they can. Especially something with direct democracy like a referendum. In the United States we have something called the Congressional Review Act that allows a newly elected congress to undo things just done by a previous administration. This is fine because those previous things were done by democratically elected officials, and the new things are being done by new representatives. Both courses of action are being done by people acting on a platform that people then voted to represent them, so overturning previous results is fine. So there's an example of it being done with a representative democracy mechanism, but for direct democracy, the case is even stronger, since it is the directly stated, absolute will of the people (nonbinding or not, this is what the result of a referendum is understood to represent). Furthermore, if we simply had to come to terms with a specific elected official, impeachment wouldn't be an option. If we simply had to come to terms with results, recounts wouldn't be an option, nor would court challenges based on suspicions of electoral fraud.

Besides, if you're so insistent that this betrays some kind of precedent, then perhaps you could work out a deal with the EU to instantly reenter, so that for a fraction of a second, on March 29th, they'd be out, but immediately be back in again, thus fulfilling both referendums, strictly speaking. I mean if you admit that a second referendum could be held, just that it couldn't stop the results of the first referendum, there's no reason the second referendum couldn't be held now, but the conditions of the "Remain" option instead be "Rejoin" and a deal worked out with the EU to make that rejoining instant. I'm sure the EU would be interested in having the UK rejoin, especially if it were done so seemlessly.

Thanks for the clarification on Northern Ireland.

To my British cousins. Help me understand. Why hasnt brexit happened yet? What's the hang up? Sorry, really, I am ignorant of the specifics and just want to know. I do trust this community to be relatively balanced.

It hasnt happend yet..... the UK leaves the EU on march 29th (I thinki it was).

Its looking like the UK are makeing a mess of things, and will have no deals in place for that day.

Reguardless of laws/trade deals ect, it kicks in on the 29th, and it looks like the uk, wants to put on a blindfold and jump off a cliff.

What are the concerns surrounding not having a deal and why did the previous proposal fail? 

The EU is by far the largest trade partner of the UK. A no-deal brexit would mean, that there would be an immediate implementation of tariffs (as dictated by the WTO between two members without other agreements) and border checks. If having tariffs/border checks is viewed as a positive or negative is a debate I won't touch, but the fact that it is so *sudden* in itself creates significant logistic issues, since the existing infrastructure doesn't assume any such barriers (which various sectors of the government and private enterprises are trying to prepare for - we'll see how effective it is.) For example, a big part of UK medical supplies come from the EU - the UK national health service is consequently prepping for a temporary shortage. (I would assume they would have a fair handle of what's necessary - I wouldn't expect people to die due to this.) The majority of the food in the UK comes from the EU; Again, probably no starvations in Britain, no need to be melodramatic; but a significant price hike, in the transition, is very possible. As a whole, it's mostly going to be a very *expensive* procedure, for both governments, and the private sector, needing to make immediate adjustments to the market situation. 

That is a lot to take in. Its not as if there is a reasonable trade partner to take the EU's place either. The US just doesn't export a lot nor do we do it well. China is a possibility, but food exports could be problematic.

As a filthy job stealing immigrant living in uk for 1.5 year, I think staying in the EU would be better for me as an individual. But for the country, in the long run, the best is to leave the EU. But I think the best way would be with a soft brexit and with time you can then cut the ties with EU. A hard brexit now would be too disruptive and caude too kany trouble.
Btw I may not agree with the decision taken by the people of uk in the referendum by I understand their reasons for doing it.

@Bold Then explain where the end sight would be in holding endless elections ? The people who 'support' the "result of the first referendum" but then calls for another immediate second referendum are loaded with nothing but horseshit to plot on overturning the result ... 

"Fixed terms" is not the equivalent of 'overturning' the result so that's just an invalid comparison right there. Depending on the structure of the government, executive orders or bills can be 'repealed' but as far as but as far as "elections/referendums" are concerned these are things that cannot be 'overturned' in principle and for a very good reason within history since the slave states that feverishly opposed the ascension Abraham Lincoln got their asses kicked in end. Any liberal democracy that are worth their salt will make good on their commitments to their own people otherwise they face the wrath of a possible civil war. It has been a sacred tradition in liberal democracies to follow with the result instead of opposing it for nearly the last 100 years and it took a civil war in what is currently one of the greatest civilizations of all time to see why it wrong to discard it but to even suggest that the people keep voting until they get a 'good' result is absolutely preposterous and shortsighted ... (the point of democracy is that the people don't know what a 'good' result is since that's entirely a matter of opinion even with a consensus so that is not a justification for defiling the integrity of democracy) 

Also despite what the pundits out there say, no Trump did not repeal Obamacare and is in fact still the law currently. As for Merkel, no she wasn't responsible for decommissioning nuclear energy. It was the previous chancellor, Gerhard Shroder which put forth a law into decommissioning nuclear energy. Merkel only extradited the process after Fukushima meltdown ... 

As for German elections, only the president can call for new elections but they also have the power to reject potential laws, however are these actions acceptable when they are supposed to hold a ceremonial role like a monarch ? 

As for your last lines I could coax you into a similar question. How do you know that the majority of the british people still want EU membership and is democracy ever to be settled with successive votes ?  

That's some mighty strong cognitive dissonance even coming from you, Kapi ... 

There is no democracy without following the result. Both are inseparable so you either take them both in or you get shit in the end, tough call there ... 

End of dialogue anyways since you obviously don't like democracy very much when you proclaim it's "pretty shitty" so there's nothing more to explain to you and I'm not pretending to like democracy in what I'm saying. I'm only trying to present a case for the justification of it where a mandate (Leave in this instance) is compelled to take action so don't even offer the premise that holding another vote before a previous resolution is yet to be in act is proclaimed 'democratic' ... 

The Leavers also gave the Conservative Party the mandate to serve Brexit as well and even the opposition is resisting calls to back a second referendum ... 

Instead of shit posting why don't you actually try being constructive for once ? 

I've never claimed that in a democracy you're not allowed to ever revisit an issue but my biggest gripe with the claim that a democracy is somehow 'delivered' with a second referendum is stupid since a democracy can only be considered to be 'delivered' AFTER the result is implemented ... 

For all I could care there could be a third vote on Brexit but don't you dare cheat them out so soon on what they've voted for when the Leavers waited an agonizing 43 YEARS to see the result they've wanted. If you truly support people changing their minds then you need to see to it that those once young people like us today who were probably once supporters of remaining in the EEC during 1975 have their wishes served. Just as the Leavers have paid down over 40 years of their life for this moment to get rid of an experiment that they didn't end up liking, it is time for the Remainers to now pay their dues back to democracy by respecting the result of the original referendum ...

It is the old folks who voted to keep Britain in the project but it is also in their power to vote Britain out of the project and take the rest of the nation in the direction they want so you need to stop being in denial over it ... 

It's as a famous politician once proclaimed, "elections have consequences" so it goes both ways in a democracy where you don't always get the result you want and this applies to representatives as well where they at the very least have a mandate to serve their terms ... 

If you somehow got the impression that democracy is just about only having a single vote then you thought wrong, my argument is about implementing the result ...