I’m not generally a fan of “direct democracy.” I like our system of constitutionally-constrained representative democracy, and the way it tries to keep both the people and the reprobates they elect from straying too far from the Founders’ plan. When the people are allowed to vote directly on specific issues, it’s good to know that there are safeguards in place to prevent the kind of rookie errors that turn rich countries into Venezuela.
(One more reason to a appreciate the crop of excellent judges this President has installed.)
But when the government asks the people to vote on something that is within their constitutional prerogative, it seems to me that that government should respect the consequence of that vote and the expressed will of the people. When the matter at hand is as momentous as a basic question of national identity and sovereignty, as it was with the British referendum, then the government should not only respect the vote, but should act promptly and in good faith to execute the will of the people.
So no, I don’t think that years of stonewalling followed by a call for another vote, for a rephrasing of the question, for just a little common sense you filthy peasants don’t you know what you’re getting us into is appropriate. The British people spoke, and they should be heard — and if they aren’t, they’ll have been robbed of their sovereignty by an establishment that apparently feels a greater allegiance to the Continent than to that musty old relic of a country that elected them.
Britain once ruled the world. Britain stood alone against the German war machine. Britain can work out the details of the Irish border, and survive the temporary confusion of renegotiated trade deals. Her people have demanded their independence. They should get it.