Introduction

In the wake of the Brexit referendum, with a 50-50 scenario being a real possibility - where a very narrow victory leads to Britain leaving the European Union - there arises a significant question: how likely is it that such a result could be disregarded?

The wider public opinion in the UK has clearly shifted. It is becoming evident that the populace may not trust any political party to handle the complexities that a post-EU world would bring. This realization forces all political parties to confront numerous uncomfortable truths. Among these is the challenge for any party to explain to the public why the supposed victory of one faction over another is no longer possible.

Parliament's Role

Parliament, in theory, can trump the government's wishes. However, in the practical realm, the implications are far more complex.

'Parliament can make whatever decision it wants,' some argue. Yet, in practice, it might fracture the Conservative party along ideological lines. UKIP's solid right and the Remain-supporting softer right might diverge, forming two distinct factions. This scenario is unlike the American Republicans, who maintain a unified front despite their differences. The Conservative party under Theresa May is focused on addressing the simmering debate over Europe for 30 years. This point is particularly true for the Scottish Conservatives, who might have a different stance once they have more time to develop their own perspective.

Political Parties' Stances

The Opposition parties and the government each have their reasons for or against overruling the referendum.

The Government could technically invoke Article 50, but this decision would not be binding. Parliament has the power to initiate the process, but it cannot commit future parliaments to the decision. The Conservative party, led by Theresa May, aims to resolve the long-standing argument over the European Union. The Scottish Conservatives might disagree, but the outcome of their political shift will be observed with interest.

The Labour party, which could have invoked Article 50, chose to remain silent. They were wary of going against the will of the people, especially in traditional Labour seats at risk of becoming marginal.

The Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), and even Queen’s counsel all may have different stances. The LibDems have little to lose, the DUP is unconcerned about the process, and the Queen, through her milliners, might offer less direct advice.

The Advisory Referendum Argument

Some argue that the Brexit referendum was merely advisory. Initially, it should have been clearly stated that the referendum was advisory. However, this point was not adequately emphasized, and now it’s too late to retract any claims about the referendum.

A government official might have the courage to claim, “We did not predict these unforeseen consequences. We are not entirely convinced that those who voted for exit wanted this change under these circumstances. We know that the 48% who didn’t vote for it are unhappy with the outcome, so we need to rethink the situation.”

Is this act of overruling the referendum going against the will of the people? It’s a question of perspective. If the government takes steps to address the unforeseen repercussions, this might be seen as a genuine response to the people's concerns.

Conclusion

While the Brexit aftermath poses significant challenges, whether a parliament can ignore the voters' choice is a matter of perspective. The key is to navigate the complexities with transparency and respect for the public's trust. Understanding and addressing the turmoil could pave the way for a more stable and successful transition for the UK.