If there is a second referendum ...

chucknorris

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Remain can't be on the table, it would cause riots.

The odds are quite close on whether there is another referendum at about

4/6 No
5/4 Yes

William Hill are 5/6 both.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Actually you can if Parliament decides it should be an option in a referendum which was the context for the comment.

In that case it should be linked to a General Election, where MPs put their own positions to their electorate.

I'm sure many of us on here are already leaning on their MP.

kabayiri

Our politicians seem to be caught between 2 positions :

- the will of the EU
- the perceived will of the voters.

I can easily see a new referendum campaign being even more bitter, with accusations of irregularities surfacing once again.

The chances of dividing the voters for a generation are quite high IMO.

In a way, I don't mind this, if it brought in more singular focus parties. Mainstream wide alliance parties have clearly failed.

Herzlos

I think they are mostly trapped by party politics and fear of losing jobs / power.

Another referendum will cause even more division but it should actually give us some direction (and a political scapegoat). Acting without knowing what the people actually vote would be even more disruptive though, especially as almost everyone is going to feel betrayed whatever the outcome is.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

No Herzlos. As you know, it would split the Leave vote and would be the only way to guarantee a Remain win.

We've just spent like 4 pages discussing how to avoid splitting the vote. You'd have to be deliberately ignorant to think it's actually an issue.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

We've just spent like 4 pages discussing how to avoid splitting the vote. You'd have to be deliberately ignorant to think it's actually an issue.

Do you think there should be a threshold on victory?

A lot of people were clearly unhappy with a 52/48 split.

What about 55/45 , or 60/40 ?

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

No Herzlos. As you know, it would split the Leave vote and would be the only way to guarantee a Remain win.

If Remain won 40% of the vote and the other two were split 30/30, that would mean Remain won, just how fair would that be. If you think the country is split now it would be incendiary then.

No, the only referendum possible is a Leave on May's terms or Leave under WTO (and tell eu to get stuffed regarding the £39BN, argue the legalities later.)

kabayiri wrote: »

Do you think there should be a threshold on victory?

A lot of people were clearly unhappy with a 52/48 split.

What about 55/45 , or 60/40 ?

I'm pretty torn on it. If we have a threshold then it could run forever which is obviously a bad idea.
So I'd probably go for either:
No threshold, but make it clearly non-binding.
Or
Define what'll happen with no majority (status quo/remain), set a majority (55/45 is enough) and make it binding.

lisyloo

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Remain can't be on the table, it would cause riots.

I'm torn on it, but why is it not acceptable for people to change their mind?


BTW - I don't know anyone that's changed their mind. Does anyone know anyone who has?

the_flying_pig

Second referendum is easy to justify:

(a) leave broke spending rules - this is documented fact;
(b) key to the leave campaign were claims that went well beyond the usual poetic licence employed during campaigns and instead moved into outright bare-faced lies - principally that post leave there'd be more money available, we'd be able to have near frictionless trade. based on what we know now these claims are objectively not true; and
(c) leave negotiations have gone abysmally badly - what's actually on the table is, almost everyone who's familiar with the detail seems to agree, worse than remaining; and

(d) you could, if you wanted, add in other stuff about Russian intervention & so on, which, it's well documented, did indeed happen [as well it might, they have good reasons for wanting to make us weaker].


I also personally think that things like the average age of leave voters & the absurdly high number of postal votes cast a very serious cloud over the result, but accept that they don't fully invalidate it.

My terms for a second referendum would be roughly as follows:

three options:

Remain
May's deal
No deal

Instant result if May's deal wins [i.e. gets the highest number of votes] or either of the two extremes get >50%, the logic behind the former rule being that most remainers would prefer May to ND, and vice versa.

If Remain or ND won with less than 50% then the AV would have to come in. AV's would be counted 'pari passu' with first votes... e.g. votes of

49:26:25 would still lead to Brexit [May's deal] if *all* of the May dealers voted ND as their second choice;
49:25:26 would still lead to Brexit [No deal] if *all* of the May dealers voted ND as their second choice; and
49:26:25 would lead to remain provided that at least 2 percentage points out of the MD 26 had remain as their second choice.

this would be pretty much fair. i daresay that, even under these rules, there'd be a significant brexiteer faction dishonestly campaigning on the basis that a vote for ND would in reality be a vote for the 'cake and eat it' option, because the lily livered euroboy surrender monkeys would instantly fold when confronted with the true British Bulldog spirit. such claims would, i suppose, have to be instantly punishable by hanging.

there'd no doubt be a lot of brexiteer squealing that this was too complex for voters, obviously from the same people who currently think it entirely sensible for the unwashed to vote on absurdly technical matters of trade policy.

the remain campaign would need to be led by someone who was both authoritative and passionate - someone who'd happily look Farage or Johnson or whoever in the eye during a TV debate and point him to his face that he's outright lying, just talking rubbish, even to play rough a bit, e.g. to look Johnson hard in the eye while pointing out that he's a lifelong Europhile & that the 'road to damascus' moment he had in his 50s, after a lifetime in politics, was blatant, unashamed, opportunism.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

...
BTW - I don't know anyone that's changed their mind. Does anyone know anyone who has?

If you listen to someone like James O Brien on LBC, he is a clear Remainer, but he is turning it into something almost akin to a religious crusade.

He accepts Leavers calling in, as long as they repent on air.

I think another referendum will definitely see much more polarised positions like this.

PM May will be expected to take a position on the referendum, but what can she choose?

She will be accused of betrayal, either way.

I think the poor woman has suffered enough!

kabayiri

the_flying_pig wrote: »

...
the remain campaign would need to be led by someone who was both authoritative and passionate - someone who'd happily look Farage or Johnson or whoever in the eye during a TV debate and point him to his face that he's outright lying, just talking rubbish, even to play rough a bit, e.g. to look Johnson hard in the eye while pointing out that he's a lifelong Europhile & that the 'road to damascus' moment he had in his 50s, after a lifetime in politics, was blatant, unashamed, opportunism.

Shouldn't an EU representative be invited into the campaign, to explain honestly where they saw the UK's future?

There was a Polish MEP I saw interviewed, and she was definitely for closing out on the existing deal. She didn't embrace the idea of an extension for another referendum at all. She was on the EU Brexit working group too.

At least she was honest.