Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of.
As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
I guess no one will truly now know.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.