At this point, there needs to be a referendum asking the people what kind of Brexit they want (or no Brexit at all if their opinions have changed). No one was arguing that the UK should leave the EU without a deal back in 2016, so it is completely ludicrous to say that leaving without a deal is the "will of the people" and doing so would likely cause civil unrest and, quite possibly, the dissolution of the union. That said, Parliament just deciding to remain indefinitely any other kind of public vote (asking for extension after extension) would likely cause civil unrest as well so a public vote needs to be held on this topic. To be honest, this should have been a two-part question back in 2016, but no one (including Cameron) thought that leave would win so no one planned for that possible eventuality.
Note: I would support the remain option or a "soft" Norway-style Brexit if it were put up to a vote.
Then-Prime Minister David Cameron should have required at least a two-thirds majority before the process of Brexit could occur. We don't pass constitutional amendments here in the United States without requiring a general consensus of the people and the states, so a similar standard should have been required for a referendum calling for a change of that magnitude. A bare majority is hardly indicative of the 'will of the people'.
Too late. You can't go back and change the rules once the game is over. Brexit is brexit, the people are sick & tired of these games from the opposition.Are you sure you're not projecting?
They need to leave on Oct. 31 regardless of what Parliament passes to try & stop it.
The British people have made it clear that they are closely divided on the issue of Brexit, and I don't see why a small fraction of the country who actually want a no-deal Brexit should get to dictate the fate of tens of millions of their fellow citizens, and drag them out of the European Union, consequences be damned. Hardly sounds like the 'will of the people' to me.
