If there was a second referendum should there then be a third

[Grassgreendashhabi]

I keep seeing people asking for a second referendum

Now if a second referendum was held and remain won by less than 60% should that then cause a third referendum? Or do remain think that leavers will bow down and go with it??

Genuine question

Can we please stop lumping all remain or leave voters together. I voted remain, I don't think there should be a second referendum shouldn't have been a first in my opinion If there is, I won't vote in it.

Well, technically the second referendum on membership has just been held.

The first referendum result was to remain.

Pan - I don't understand

The first referendum was held in 1975.

True but the terms of the first and what we were signing up too are very different to the pulsating beast we have today.

Pan - ok I get what your saying but a referendum in 1975 is not relevant. That was over 40 years ago.

For clarity I'm talking about the one over a week ago

Personally, I think a General Election is required, not a referendum, because that's how our system of government normally works:

The Tories (and all major Westminster parties) were elected on a Remain manifesto, which they've had for decades, so - unlike when Brown replaced Blair as PM, or Major replaced Thatcher - a Brexit PM should seek a fresh mandate for such a radical change.

Many of those who voted Leave were not voting the Tory version of it.
Not voting for the post-Brexit Tory budget, which may be very harsh.

If either Labour or Tory win on a Brexit manifesto, then that would settle the issue, at least for me.
There would have been time for reflection, to see some of the real consequences, to have campaigns run by professional party organisations.

I voted remain and don't think their should be a second referendum at all.

This could also be argued about what people were led to believe a vote to Leave were signing up for. There are many varied potential and conflicting scenarios.

Only after agreed negotiations will we know what the outcome will be. And what governments choose to fund and subsidise with whatever available funds.

Nevertheless, this was the second referendum.

It depends what question the second referendum is asking - as I've made clear on the other thread, there is a proposal to have a referendum on what kind of deal we want and if we can't have that kind of deal, should we stay? It's not a re-run of last Thursday's question.

In answer to your question of do I think the Leavers would accept a Remain result - no. Much like Remain are doing now, I would expect protests and further campaigns to go. The result was so close that clearly a huge amount of people are unhappy either way and have the right to have their voices heard. I don't expect this to settle down and go away - it isn't and never will be a question of 'this side won and it's all over now' - the repercussions will be felt for a long time and the debate will rage on, whatever happens.

I am praying that there is no general election until Corbyn is ancient history. If Corbyn had done the honourable thing and stepped aside, allowing Labour members to make a free choice for their next leader, and this resulted in a sensible, erudite candidate winning, then I might agree with you. However, Corbyn does not have the qualities we need right now and the stakes are too high to take the risk.

Incidentally the General Election was held before the negotiations with the EU were completed, so the Conservatives did not win on a Remain manifesto. They got into power for two main reasons:

• they promised they would provide a referendum on the EU.
• a lot of floating voters voted for them as a means of voting against Ed Miliband become prime minister, thereby decimating the Lib Dems in the process.

We need a general election seeing as the two main parties have disintegrated into shambolic chaos. It is disgraceful. And I want my voice to be heard.

I agree re: Corbyn. He's an arrogant nitwit and we've got enough of them already.

I'm going to ask a very stupid question. Is there anything the public can do to make there be a general election or is it entirely down to the party in charge? I'm not 100% sure how that bit works? Can someone explain?

Also, if a second referendum was an informed choice on the exact terms and conditions, then it would be different from the first, so no need for a thirds referendum.

I think to avoid chaos we need no more elections or referendums until the chaos in Westminster has settled down, new party leaders are in place, a Brexit team has been assembled and a deal with the EU has been thrashed out. All of that should happen before Article 50 is invoked too.

We also need a timetable in advance, so that businesses have some certainty over the process and timescale ahead and can feel confident that no rash decisions will be made and no one will be cornered into agreeing something detrimental.

A deal with the EU can't be negotiated until Article 50 is invoked - by which time it's too late to back out. Which is why the referendum I have discussed on another thread is questionable as it relies on informal negotiations which won't take place and we would have to speculate on the likely deal instead.

Timescales and certainty seem very much out of anyone's grasp. This referendum was ill-conceived and there is no clear way forward.

As the EU, the Lisbon Treaty, Article 50 and the referendum are all human constructs, there are no laws of nature preventing discussions happening first. It is clearly in the interest of every country in Europe for these negotiations to happen in a sensible order, without closing the door on sensible outcomes. While it is understandable that Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin are all after a bit of London's Euro commodity trading, that is not enough of a prize to prevent them from worrying about the risks to their wider economies. My hope is that common sense will prevail.

Is there anything the public can do to make there be a general election or is it entirely down to the party in charge?

It's down to the party.

Front runners for PM have said there won't be one.

No, there shouldn't be another referendum.

People decided on all the information available, sifted out what were the most important factors to them, and weighed it all up. The main reason for the "leave" vote was democracy/sovereignty, and so they'd vote for that despite a claim on the side of a bus.

Anyone who was in the slightest bit interested in finding out the validity of the various claims and counterclaims on each side will have done so well before 23 June. We became aware of the forecasts for uncertainty after a Brexit. It was covered hugely in the papers, on TV, radio, in public debates, online and so on. You couldn't miss it.

Now would be a bad time to go back for another referendum. Brexit is about the long term future of the country and it would be very short-sighted to take the past week as a "snapshot" of the future. I think this shake-up in politics may well turn out to be a very good thing.

Thanks piglet.

"The main reason for the "leave" vote was democracy/sovereignty"

No, it was immigration, according to Arron Banks (who bankrolled leave.eu with his own £5.6 million):

"The Conservatives are now trying to rewrite the campaign that immigration wasn't important, but boy was immigration important,"

"The first thing we did was poll everybody and we found that if immigration wasn't the issue, the issue was schools or education, proxies for immigration. It was the number one issue by a country mile,"

This why politicians are having such problems coming up with a Brexit strategy:

ANY form of Free Trade with the EU will require Free Movement, which is totally unacceptable for many Leavers.
So the alternative is return to the WTO rules, quite feasible in the longterm, but will cause some years of economic downturn

A General Election would let the Tories spell out which Brexit option they plan and obtain a mandate for the tough actions they will need to take.
Labour can give their alternative; Liberals theirs for Remain.
The public then chooses their preferred form of hurt.

"Brexit PM should seek a fresh mandate for such a radical change"

No, the mandate comes from the popular vote in the referendum.

I agree that there is a need for pre-A50 negotiations (not least sorting out the 'to do' list). Because it tends to weaken UK position once clock is ticking.

If the EU negotiates, they would demand before starting that the UK parliament approve any deal, not a 2nd referendum.
They would be idiots to spend years negotiating, with the chance the UK public would say no at the end of it all and cause more chaos.

A mandate from an advisory referendum with no legal force ? Basically an expensive opinion poll.

True the public can decimate the Tories at the 2020 election if they are sufficiently angry, but it would be very frustrated anger, without the possibility of change.