That's fair enough in theory, but the LDs to me and I think most people will forever be anti-democratic as they want to overturn 1 ref without another. Are there any precedents for this? Even the EU don't do that.JohnMcGreal wrote:I had a conversation with taio about this very scenario a good few months back.
If a party stands on a manifesto in a general election, and wins enough seats to form a government, in what way would it be anti-democratic to then follow through with those manifesto commitments?
You could argue that it's less direct than a referendum, and that thanks to our FPTP system, it isn't proportionally representative, but it would not be anti-democratic.
In fact, in our Parliamentary system, this is exactly how it should work. Referendums don't really sit well within our representative democratic system, but that can of worms has been opened, and I think the only way this eventually gets resolved is with another referendum.
But until then, any party can legitimately stand on a manifesto to revoke article 50, to offer a referendum or to leave with no deal. They are all valid positions to take ahead of a general election.
Anyway they have no chance of forming a government and if Labour agree to revoke in that way as part of a coalition deal, it could backfire big style on them.