LibDems wanting a second referendum - Please explain the logic

[optionalrationale]

The LibDems believe the UK should remain part of the EU. While they accept the outcome of the the June 2016 Referendum, they also want the final terms of our exit deal to go to a second Referendum in the hope that we say "OK let's Remain after all".

Can anyone explain the logic of this position at this stage of the negotiations? Surely this encourages the EU to make our exit terms the very worst they can make them, basically holding us to ransom until the second referendum would be deliver the capitulation they and the LibDems are hankering for.

I genuinely wanted to check if was missing something obvious.

By calling people who voted the other way remoaners and snowflakes. Sure you did optional.

Remainers are supposed to be the sophisticated, cosmopolitan, progressive, highly-educated elite. Leavers are supposed to be the tattooed, knuckle-draggers who "just don't get it".

There is nothing wrong with you arguing the case against a second referendum, you were the one who chose to add in sneery comments about "Remoaners". Take responsibility for your own actions.

Curious thread. What makes you think the 27 want us to remain at this point?

People voted in the first referendum on the basis of at best nebulous claims - from either side - of what Brexit would mean

I have seen no evidence of that. Every leaver I have ever met have all said they voted to leave the EU, not one says, "I only voted to leave a bit of the EU". And all the polls I have read backs that up, TM is doing what leavers voted for, leaving the EU, and they are happy with how she is doing it.

A second referendum would enable the government to say "this now is the deal in the table, do you want us to go ahead on this basis?" Surely it's not hard to grasp why some people might think that's the right and democratic thing to do.

That would indeed be a good thing to do apart from the glaringly obvious point that this thread is about and Lib Dems never answer. A second referendum incentivises the EU to give us the worst possible deal, if any at all.

And another point of why a second referendum is a bad thing. Whilst some details might might be known when the referendum happens, many will likely not be known. Also the effects of what the deal will have on the UK will be unknown because it will be a one sided debate on the negatives. The positives will only be realised when we actually leave and are permitted once again to make trade deal with other countries.

So a second referendum would be run along the same lines as the last. With a lot of speculation and a lot of lies very bias rhetoric about the impact of leaving.

Interesting. So you think the first ref wasn't run on the basis of nebulous or misleading claims, but the second one would be.

Whilst some details might might be known when the referendum happens, many will likely not be known.

No, we won't know everything. But we will presumably know whether there will be a hard border in Ireland or not, we will have some idea of whether companies are looking to leave, we will know rather more than we do now.
.
What would be good (although not sure if this is possible) is if May was to negotiate a deal with a proper transitional period quite close to what we have already. After that time we could decide whether a semi-detached status was working for us, stick with that or move to full separation. Sadly, May's team do not seem at all capable of delivering anything sensible.

So you think the first ref wasn't run on the basis of nebulous or misleading claims, but the second one would be

Pre-referendum I remember it all being very clear, vote leave meant leaving the EU, vote remain meant staying in the EU. I dont remember a single debate about, if voting leave would involve staying in the EU. Its only post referendum that remainers started the narrative that leavers didn't know what they voted for.

A second referendum would supposedly be on overturning the first referendum or working out if the new deal will be good or bad. How will I know what that means, a good deal in the short term or long term? A good deal for who? What if not all the terms of the deal are known? How is anyone supposed to work out if its a good deal?

we will presumably know whether there will be a hard border in Ireland or not
Maybe, maybe not. Who will decide if what is agreed is called a hard border or a soft border? What if we come up with something that is then subsequently changed. It might just become a work in progress.

we will have some idea of whether companies are looking to leave
Or maybe companies will say they will decide that after the outcome of the referendum is known. Or maybe they will say they are leaving but are only saying that to influence the outcome of the referendum and wont actually leave. So not much certainty there then.

we will know rather more than we do now
Will we? I could see the EU negotiating an initial deal to influence the referendum and then negotiating the real deal once the UK have finally decided if its leaving or staying. Or we could negotiate a deal that involves negotiating terms in a protracted transitional arrangement. I can the EU negotiating very little until we decide if we are actually leaving.

negotiate a deal with a proper transitional period... After that time we could decide whether a semi-detached status was working for us
So a semi permanent purgatory in the EU where they keep punishing us so that we never dare to leave? That's insane.

The thread is to debate the logic of the LibDem stated position. As Ajon 213 has pointed out, no one has yet explained the problem of a second referendum (being advocated by a party who wants to Remain) and the impact it would have on the likelihood of getting a good deal.

Options

1. The LibDems win the second ref.

2. The LibDems lose the second ref.

3. More likely to happen if we get a bad / unattractive exit settlement

4. More likely to happen if we get fair deal

QED They want the negotiations to go badly? Or they want to lose their own referendum

"Pre-referendum I remember it all being very clear, vote leave meant leaving the EU, vote remain meant staying in the EU. I dont remember a single debate about, if voting leave would involve staying in the EU. Its only post referendum that remainers started the narrative that leavers didn't know what they voted for."

On the contrary, what was very clear pre-ref was that Leave encompassed a variety of mutually exclusive positions. The Norway option was talked about a lot by leavers, who of course dismissed remainers' warnings that this would mean keeping FOM as project fear. It is only post-ref that the most vocal Leavers have declared that they meant "hard Brexit" all along, although polls on staying in the single market suggest that there is a quieter majority that think otherwise.

"QED They want the negotiations to go badly? Or they want to lose their own referendum"

Or they want the best possible outcome, whether that means a deal with the EU or staying in.

Their position on this is the main reason why I am reluctant to vote for them - hate Tories/hate Corbyn/usually a Labour voter.
I voted Remain and I lost. That bird has flown. You can't unring a bell. We've made our bed. And other cliches for this shitfest.
Pretending it hasn't happened isn't an option.

what was very clear pre-ref was that Leave encompassed a variety of mutually exclusive positions.

We will have to agree to disagree, the issues has been widely discussed previously. Most leavers seem to take the Andrew Neil position that all the leaders on both sides of the debate agreed leave meant leaving the EU single market. And remainers are of the opinion that someone somewhere said leave meant staying in the EU single market.

But it's not pretending it didn't happen, is it? We have to have some kind of relationship with the rest of the EU in 2019, and at the moment we have no idea what that will look like. You can let Theresa May, or the Tory right wing, decide that if you like, but it's not going to be somehow more democratic than a 2nd referendum.

"Most leavers seem to"

Do they?

Or maybe they will say they are leaving but are only saying that to influence the outcome of the referendum and wont actually leave

If companies don't want us to leave shouldn't that be a sign that leaving is not altogether a good idea.

they keep punishing us

The EU is not punishing us, they are saying that if we choose to no longer be members, we cannot go on receiving the benefits of membership. The supposed 100 million exit bill could have been turned to TM's advantage, she could have negotiated a much lower sum and presented it to the electorate as a proof of what a good deal she had got for us. Instead she's thrown a hissy fit to increase her majority by a few extra but at the cost of making a good deal less likely.

As for Leave voters not knowing what they were voting for, I doubt that more than a fraction of us really understood what was involved. For every voter who did lots of research I imagine there were many more who went on their instincts. Did all Remainers spend hours contemplating the effects of leaving on Patent legislation?

It is only post-ref that the most vocal Leavers have declared that they meant "hard Brexit" all along,

Absolutely. And an awful lot of how the EU would be forced to give us a good deal by German car-makers. Many prominent Leavers like Christopher Booker and Richard North are horrified at what is happening.

Who wants to stay in the single market?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/uk-voters-want-single-market-access-and-immigration-controls-poll-finds

You can let Theresa May, or the Tory right wing, decide that if you like, but it's not going to be somehow more democratic than a 2nd referendum

I can't see how a referendum designed to get us a bad deal from the EU or overturn our first democratic referendum is more democratic than our 900 year old parliamentary democracy.

So lets have a democratic general election and encourage everyone to take part in selecting MPs in our great democracy. And between JC and TM defending our position against the EU I predict most of the country will think Theresa is by far the best choice.

If companies don't want us to leave shouldn't that be a sign that leaving is not altogether a good idea.

Isn't that like saying, "If companies don't want to be taxed shouldn't that be a sign that taxing them is not altogether a good idea"?

The EU is not punishing us
You got your tongue stuck firmly in your cheek there, lol.

I note no one is yet explaining how a second referendum would overcome the incentives for the EU to deliberately try and force us into a really bad deal.

Who wants to stay in the single market?
Yip some of us would but as has been said many times, the EU refuse to allow us to if we want to control our own borders. Hence why we are forced to leave the EU single market.

"I can't see how a referendum designed to get us a bad deal from the EU or overturn our first democratic referendum is more democratic than our 900 year old parliamentary democracy."

All referenda are equal, but some are more equal than others?

"note no one is yet explaining how a second referendum would overcome the incentives for the EU to deliberately try and force us into a really bad deal."

You are making the assumption that the EU still want us to remain. Can you explain why this is?

The LibDems can promise what they want, they are no longer relevant & will bomb at the GE

All referenda are equal, but some are more equal than others?

That's the EU line isn't it? Just keep having refernda until you get the result you want, which risks undermining democracy. Just look at what NS is doing to Scotland with the neverendum.

You are making the assumption that the EU still want us to remain
I have no idea if they do but isn't the presumption behind the idea of a second referendum? If they dont want us the idea is mute.

Anyway its all just talk now because so the Lib Dems can get a few more more Mps TM has taken charge and is sorting it all out.

I'm having trouble following the logic of both of those points I'm afraid.

The EU is not punishing us
You got your tongue stuck firmly in your cheek there, lol.,

Not at all, I've seen nothing in the EU negotiation plan that is about punishment. They are saying that if we are not members we can't expect the benefits of membership. I don't believe the 100 million bill was serious, as I said TM could have used that to her advantage if she had wanted to. I have no doubt that we could have negotiated a Norway style deal if we had wanted to but that option seems to have vanished.

The whole punishment thing is meant to convince us that when we don't get the deal prominent Leavers assured us we would we blame the EU rather than concluding that the whole thing was a bad idea. I actually think they're wrong about this. Vast majority of Leavers and Remainers will judge by results, and government will be praised or blamed accordingly.

I've seen nothing in the EU negotiation plan that is about punishment Yes I get that is the alt left view, so we will have to agree to disagree.

if we are not members we can't expect the benefits of membership
Completely agree, dont think anyone is asking for this, we just want a normal free trade deal like normal friendly countries do with each other.

I don't believe the 100 million bill was serious Billion. Neither do I, so why did they say it other than to goad us or affect our elections? Of course if JC was PM he might very well offer to pay the EU a £100 Billion exit fee.

I have no doubt that we could have negotiated a Norway style deal if we had wanted to Again I agree but we didn't want that, we voted to leave not stay in the EU,