Ka-pi96 said:
That's not true actually. The first referendum was only advisory and wasn't legally binding so there's not actually any need to overturn it. |
By overturn, I mean legislate contrary to its will (i.e. revoke article 50 or just ignore it in the first place), not make an official law saying it's null and void. If not being legally binding means that parliament could have just ignored it or could reoke article 50 at any time, why is anyone even talking about a second referendum? Why not just revoke it now? You could reinvoke it later after getting some sort of plan in place if you really wanted to, or just not and remain. The majority of parliament wants to remain, by far, so why aren't they doing so?
Simple, it's because even if a referendum isn't legally binding, it would be immensely damaging to democracy to ignore it or legislate against it. Not even the hardest remainer would dare endorse such damage to the institutions of democracy. If you want to revoke article 50, you need a second referendum.
