The question was poorly worded because it left the door open to so many questions and paths it was ludicrous.
Like what? The Government said that if the Leave vote is successful we will trigger article 50 and the UK will then leave the EU at the end of 2 years with or without a deal. It was made very clear that leave meant leave. The people were asked what they wanted Parliament to do. If the result was leave the EU then it was up to Parliament to try and reach an acceptable exit deal with the EU. If they couldn't then the country would leave with no deal. Before the referendum for example the PM stated on several occasions that no deal would be better than a bad deal. The people were asked what needed asking.
This is why, when we have a direct people's vote to something in this country, we vote on proposed bills and laws, not on a nebulous, amorphous change.
The issue and question was pretty straight forward. There was a lot of debate and people had clarity when they voted. It's become a mess simply because politicians have refused to honour the wishes of the people. Politicans have tried to blur the lines but if you listen to those who voted everything was pretty clear.
The UK should have first decided where they want to go and what they want to do, and then voted on it. They needed a plan to vote on, and then as the situation changed or developed, consult the populace as need be when in deadlock.
The UK parliament gave the people the opportunity to decide the direction the country took re the EU. It was pretty clear. It was stay or leave. Not complicated. There was by the way a plan of sorts to vote on in so much as the Government stated that if the Leave vote wins they will trigger article 50 and with or without a deal the country would leave the EU at the end of two years. By the way, the only reason there has been deadlock is because Parliament has refused to accept the result of the 2016 peoples vote.
Apparently, however, people only wanted to vote on something once. They willingly abdicated their own voices at every step of the process after the first one and had faith in the system that everything would work out in the end, and look where that got them. A hung parliament still quibbling over what type of Brexit should be had 4 years after the fact.
There was no need for another referendum. The people had already stated what they wanted. If the pollies respected the will of the people then the country would already have been out of the EU and focusing more on domestic issues instead of being paralysed by pollies who are doing everything possible to stop the UK from leaving full stop.
Democracy is a process. It starts at a vote. It doesn't end there. Especially in situations like this, where the vote itself was so close. As much as the leavers would have liked to pretend otherwise, the fact that the vote was so close indicated that the UK was split on this issue, and that Parliament would likewise be split on this issue.
In a democracy MP's are supposed to respect the will of the people. They said they would but they havent. By the way, the leave vote was successful in 9 of the 12 regions in the UK.
This is one of the reasons why I advocated for some type of second vote or public input into the process.
Why? What if a 2nd referendum ended 51-49. Do you have a third vote? What if that ends 52-48. Do you have a 4th vote? What majority figure would be deemed acceptable?
Lots of different ideas were floated during the campaign by all the different leave camps, and they needed to coalesce around a core of ideas.
They did. They wanted the UK to leave the EU. That meant to leave the single market and the customs union. It meant to remove the UK from the authority of the ECJ. Leave meant leave. It was clear. The problem has only arisen because most pollies oppose the UK leaving the EU and so they are doing all they can to stop it from happening. A 2nd referendum would have solved nothing but it would have undermined people's faith in referendums and the democratic process.
As stated earlier, we have 'this mess' as pollies have reneged on their promise to respect the result of the referendum.