Time will tell exactly what constitutional power referendum had, but whatever , having a second would be ridiculous.
Make your minds up, are you asking for another referendum or saying referendums should not form part of democratic process. You cant claim both, well you can, but to do so is contradictory.
As for claiming you cant believe people in their right minds would vote to leave, they just did ! It wasn't an opinion poll.
I think leave would be stronger in an antidemocratic pointless second referendum.
time won't tell. you can't make something constitutionally powerful that isn't by just waiting. If its acted upon, it'll be because of a fear of seeming to ignore half the population... but guess what, either way they'll be ignoring half the population won't they.
Read this yesterday and it was written by someone how knows their stuff.
---------
A thing I wrote last night clearing up some misconceptions re referenda and democracy. Some people have asked I repost here so they can share more easily.
Please note- I am well aware there are some serious oversimplifications, minor semantic inaccuracies, and not enough citations. I wrote this at 11pm last night in 10-15 furious minutes, absolutely minimal proofing. This isn't a legal textbook. It is me trying to explain some things a little more to my friends, as briefly as possible.
----------
Referendums are extra-parliamentary measures that should be rarely called upon to perform an advisory role to the Government. They are opinion polls used to guide the Government, not force it to comply.
They're normally called in direct response to a new political/legal development or issue- eg a new treaty or crisis. This one was not triggered by any such catalysing event beyond poor leadership. Cameron hoped to placate the disenfranchised with a token show of 'democracy' to show we take the people's views very seriously here. The two problems are that 1) it backfired. He didn't realise the media would jump on it and a hungry electorate would respond so generously in kind, 2) when trying to demonstrate the strength of parliamentary democracy the last thing you do is use an extra-parliamentary measure. The very fact you are relying on something outside of the usual process of parliamentary democracy is like waving a big flag suggesting parliamentary democracy has failed.
One of the problems of calling this referendum despite no catalysing event is that this means there is no clear question to answer. You may say 'well, it's leave or stay. Surely that's clear enough?' But it isn't. It's far too broad for the blunt swirling tides of public opinion. If it was 'do we ratify Treaty A?' you can rely on the treaty's articles and go through logically. There is a focus. People will make reasoned judgments. We come to an educated (and normally significant majority) conclusion. That hasn't happened here. No clear question... So the campaigns have derailed and gone off into all sorts of bizarre areas. Cue misinformation, a lack of facts, lack of focus, confusion, ire, fear etc. That's a key reason why we've got to this point.
The next point is 'democracy'. It has a complex definition, with many different layers and meanings. This campaign has largely chosen to use the very basic simple majority idea of 'democracy' eg voice of the people. Everyone has a say. All voices valid. Which is true. But democracy has many levels, and they vary between situations and motivations.
Our democracy (broad term) chooses to afford this democratic privilege by universal suffrage. Men and women voting. But not people under 18. Why? Isn't that undemocratic? Why shouldn't they have a say? We also deny the vote to those with serious mental health issues. And those serving a prison sentence. Why? Do they not deserve a voice? Many have paid their taxes in the past? Are they not a product of our society?
We make decisions on 'democracy' and the levels of democracy that we accept for different things.
We accept a simple majority for simple things. Like 52:48 referendums which are not legally-binding and can easily be ignored (see French and Netherlands referenda 2005). That doesn't mean the vote isn't completely valid. It is. It's just that it has absolutely no legal force. Democratic force, yes, but only framed in the terms of reference as an advisory opinion poll. No more, no less.
The problems arise when people confuse this level of democratic intention with the level of democratic intention required for legal effect. If you wish to claim the referendum should be binding, you must also acknowledge the goalposts have moved and a greater standard of proof is required. With the rise in severity, a rise in standard is also deemed essential. Pop Idol, BGT, Bake Off, Referendum. Simple majority wins. More serious issues: greater % needed. Most serious issues- eg Death Penalty, unanimous vote required.
Making the referendum legally-binding means you need a democratic intention to match. Generally speaking, enshrined in much case law, statute and international treaty, any legal motion which effects constitutional change must generally seek to attain a 2/3 majority (please note- as a very very loose guide) to pass. The most relevant comparisons we could make here is when other Commonwealth nations (India, Australia, etc) have voted in the past to amend constitution they have required a supermajority to make constitutional changes. 2/3rd majority is one such common standard- as those voting 'for' are twice as big as those 'against'. (Further stuff on supermajorities here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority)
This isn't a 'new' rule. It isn't changing the goalposts. It has been this way, in international law, for decades. It wasn't mentioned during the Brexit campaigns because the referendum is not a legal motion, and is not subject to this standard. If you try to claim the referendum is enforceable, though, well you play by the law (and democracy's) rules. It is unconscionable that just under 50% of the country be bound by the other 50. Which is why these standards exist. They're not arbitrary. They're not sour grapes. They are democracy in action, assuring the greater good for all by not remorselessly enslaving a disenfranchised minority to very serious repercussions without corresponding serious intention. 50% of the population can't see the point of women's toilets- so let's get ride of them, hey? Perfectly democratic. But also undemocratic. Different levels apply.
On the subject of the petition- it's largely irrelevant and a bit of a red herring. It calls for establishing a standard that already exists in international law, through accepted doctrine of precedent and international democratic norms. It calls for a debate in Parliament that you can bet your house was already going to happen (a nation almost equally divided on a huge constitutional issue- it would be absurd for them not to debate it). When it is debated in parliament it may be put to the vote. That would be democratic. The result would be binding, and have legal force. They represent us. They have followed legislative procedure and met legislative criteria. The previous referendum is irrelevant. It's an opinion poll. They heard.
Cameron said that if the Leave vote won he would invoke Article 50 of Treaty of Lisbon. This gives the EU formal notification that the UK intends to leave and opens a 2 year period for formal negotiations with the 27 member states to exit. This was undemocratic. It avoided parliamentary democracy (our MPs debating and acting in our interests). It also took the advisory opinion poll and placed it on an entirely unwarranted, undemocratic pedestal as somehow equal to a formal legal motion, without the entailing legal standards (suggested 2/3rd majority for constitutional changes, remember?). It was a political and legal gaffe almost on a par with calling the damn referendum in the first place. A joke. He went back on his word and resigned.
Despite Leave 'winning' no Art 50 declaration has been made. Why? Because to do so would be undemocratic, off the back of an opinion poll that it seems very few people realise is just largely symbolic. Like the petition being symbolic.
So should there be a 2nd referendum? No. Because they don't respect parliamentary democracy and have no legal effect whatsoever. Should there be a debate in Parliament? Yes. Because that is democracy in action. Will a 2/3 majority be needed? Yes. Because that is democracy. Is the 1st referendum valid? Absolutely. It is a fine testament to our democracy. Just not the democracy relevant in this situation.
