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.

Again I agree but we didn't want that, we voted to leave not stay in the EU,

Might have been nice if people like Farage and Daniel Hannan could have said that rather than abusing Remainers and indeed Leavers who innocently believed them when they kept saying before the vote that it was an option. And given that Norway is NOT in the EU it would have been an option that respected the Leave vote.

we just want a normal free trade deal like normal friendly countries do with each other.

Which is what will be agreed eventually, it will not be as good as Single Market access though.

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". ...

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you don't know what nebulous means. Of course it's a binary in/out decision, the question is whether people on either side or none had reliable information on which to make their decision, whichever it was. For example, Boris and others drove around in the famous bus whose slogan very strongly implied (although it didn't categorically state) that the money currently sent to the EU would be diverted to the NHS. That's not going to happen. Would that change anyone's decision? Maybe not, but a second referendum would give them the opportunity to reaffirm or not their original decision.

I dont remember a single debate about, if voting leave would involve staying in the EU.

Well, obvously not. It's a binary decision.

Its only post referendum that remainers started the narrative that leavers didn't know what they voted for.

At the time of the first referendum there were people of all political persuasions and none questioning the veracity of claims being made on either side. Of course the electorate knew that the decision was remain or leave but the question that was raised at the time and remains current was whether people were voting in either direction on the basis of incomplete or misleading information.

You need to decide whether you think the electorate is capable of making a good decision, as you seem to saying that they could last year but somehow have lost their faculties since then and so couldn't some time down the line.

given that Norway is NOT in the EU it would have been an option that respected the Leave vote It was as option but it was quickly dismissed because TM figured out that it would not respect the leave vote.

it will not be as good as Single Market access though On its own maybe not, but when we start making trade deals with the rest of the world we will be in a much better position.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you don't know what nebulous means of course there were nebulous claims made during the referendum but the proposition was quite solid, stay or leave. A second referendum would be on the much less solid proposal of "is this a good deal".

Well, obviously not. It's a binary decision
It didn't have to be a binary decision we could have had the leave but stay, Norway option on the ballot. We choose not to.

You need to decide whether you think the electorate is capable of making a good decision No you really dont. Because having someone dictate if people are able to make good decisions is a dictatorship. People decide for good, bad or indifferent reasons and parliament acts upon that. That's what a democracy is.

Parliament decided it couldn't resolve the EU question and so it asked the people. It is now acting upon the result. Now should parliament in the future decide it is unable to resolve a strong desire to rejoin the EU I would support another referendum. However parliament is demonstrating it knows what to do and is moving forward with its plans, so there seems no need what so ever to have another referendum.

If you think people want another referendum to stay or rejoin the EU. Then do what UKIP did and create a political movement to achieve it and maybe in 20 years time you will get enough support to force the issue.

You need to decide whether you think the electorate is capable of making a good decision. No you really dont

No, I mean you need to decide whether the great UK public is capable of making a difficult decision. It's you who's suggesting that the nation was in full possession of its faculties last year and so made a sound decision but somehow has lost the ability to do again, and so couldn't cope with the demands of a second referendum.

You seem to be getting very muddled between Parliament and the government and, constitutionally, it's a very important distinction. It was David Cameron who decided to call a referendum and so the process therefore stemmed from the government.

TM figured out that it would not respect the leave vote.

Well, silly me for believing all those prominent Leave campaigners who said this was about restoring Parliamentary sovereignty. Didn't realise that meant one person got to decide.

On its own maybe not, but when we start making trade deals with the rest of the world we will be in a much better position.

You mean those trade deals with the USA that will involve accepting their lower standards of food production and opening the NHS to private health care companies. And those Commonwealth countries that have said they're offended by Empire 2 rhetoric.

No, I mean you need to decide whether the great UK public is capable of making a difficult decision And I replied, no I really dont because we were asked to settle an argument that parliament couldn't. Whether we were capable of making a difficult decision or not was beside the point.

It's you who's suggesting that the nation was in full possession of its faculties last year and so made a sound decision but somehow has lost the ability to do again No I am not, I am saying Parliament was conflicted about the issue, and we settled it with a referendum. Parliament is no longer conflicted over the issue and so doesn't need or want another referendum.

It was David Cameron who decided to call a referendum and so the process therefore stemmed from the government That is your opinion, I disagree. There was a difference of opinion in Parliament because there was a difference of opinion in the country. All three main parties have previously called for a referendum on the EU. The matter was put into a manifesto and a majority of voters went for it. So I say the process stemmed from normal people who wanted their voice heard. DC was just one part of the process. The whole of Parliament, MP's and the Lords voted overwhelmingly to have the referendum.

silly me for believing all those prominent Leave campaigners who said this was about restoring Parliamentary sovereignty. Didn't realise that meant one person got to decide
Yes silly you. It was parliament that voted overwhelmingly to trigger A50 knowing what TM's position was and if the House of Commons don't agree with TMs position in the future then they can have a vote of no confidence of her. That's democracy. That is parliamentary democracy.

Since when has it become a bad thing to have a strong leader running her party or the country. Has JC's incompetence addled your brain?

trade deals with the USA that will involve accepting their lower standards of food production and opening the NHS to private health care companies Again that's you pessimistic opinion and no reason to believe either of those things will happen.

Since when has it become a bad thing to have a strong leader running her party or the country. Has JC's incompetence addled your brain?

I wouldn't call Theresa May a strong leader, any more than I'd call Corbyn one. She seems wary of meeting the electorate except in pre-arranged settings and can only speak in slogans even when the whole country has got wise to her penchant for repetitive rhetoric and is taking the piss out of her for it. Furthermore, rather than come up with any ideas of her own, she has gone for wholesale adoption of UKIP's. These things will only get her so far. We need a strong leader who is diplomatic and capable of thinking on her feet.
Also, she singularly failed to control immigration when she was Home Secretary. I really don't buy this 'strong leader' bullshit, but then I don't think intransigence = strength or that promising to be a 'difficult woman' is a great negotiating stance.

Since when has dissent been a bad thing? Since when has listening to a range of opinions and being capable of compromise a weakness?

Because if May = strength, then that is what "weakness" means now.

Since when was it a bad thing to have a 'strong' leader? Try Spain under Franco, Germany in the 1930s.

Try Spain under Franco, Germany in the 1930s

or Turkey under Erdogan.

Again that's you pessimistic opinion and no reason to believe either of those things will happen.

No more reason to think lots of wonderful trade deals will happen.

Don't liken May to Franco or Mussolini. Only a stupid child with no fucking idea what they were talking about would do that.
Are you old enough to vote coming out with bullshit like that.
Tory hater here who lived through the democratically elected Thatcher years.

And I replied, no I really dont because we were asked to settle an argument that parliament couldn't. Whether we were capable of making a difficult decision or not was beside the point.

It's very much the point. You're still dodging my question of whether, in your opinion, the great UK public has the political and intellectual capacity to decide on a matter of political, legal and every other kind of complexity. The gist of your comments is that we managed to do so last year but we've all collectively lost our faculties since and couldn't do it again. I was curious about why you've lost faith in our collective decision-making.

And what you dismiss as my opinion is now a matter of historical record.

So, this is why I generally avoid the Brexit threads.

Far from 'am I old enough to vote?', I have been voting a long time and also lived through the Thatcher years.

But if you read what I actually said, I answered the question about when it was bad to have a 'strong leader'. I did not mention May. You are the one who has compared her to Franco and Mussolini. Strong leaders can indeed be good, but it's not a given. They can be appalling bad.

One thing you can't accuse Corbyn of being is a strong leader

Ha, I don't think anyone has said Corbyn is a strong leader.

A number would qualify - most would seem generate mixed feelings of loving or loathing, but I would offer - Churchill, Thatcher, Blair, as definites. Weak - Alec Douglas-Home was an obvious candidate. IDS and Howard as Tory leaders.

Peregrina
What are your thoughts on a pro Remain party advocating a second referendum? I don't recall seeing your views on the topic of this thread.

I wouldn't call Theresa May a strong leader
Well I would, the longest-serving home secretary of modern times, a remainer who stepped up to lead the country out of the EU, a Tory who has united the Conservatives, who is hopefully uniting the country by taking the party to a landslide victory in June and a PM who is standing up to Eurocrats that want to punish the UK just because it dared to try and escape the EUs clutches.

You can deride her for talking in slogans, being organised etc but that is what you have to do to win elections, that's strength and intelligence, if people dont like it then dont vote for her. People seem to like it.

she has gone for wholesale adoption of UKIP's
Crikey I had heard she was adopting Ed Milibands ideas, guess she is boxing clever to appeal to both sides of the spectrum and trying to unite the country.

We need a strong leader who is diplomatic and capable of thinking on her feet
I would prefer a strong leader who is diplomatic and thoughtful unlike leaders who make decisions on the hoof.

promising to be a 'difficult woman' is (not) a great negotiating stance
Oh really, I like people who stand their ground and wont take EU bullshit. I think she will be a tenacious negotiator so we can get a good deal rather than fold when the EU make its first offer of a £100,000,000,000 bill.

Since when has dissent been a bad thing?
Who said that? We will still have dissent after the election, if Labour members get off their ass and elect a proper leader, that is. Its not Mays fault JC is an idiot.

Try Spain under Franco, Germany in the 1930s
Can I add Tony Blair to that list.

No more reason to think lots of wonderful trade deals will happen.
Actually there is, because we will have the entire government actually trying to make it happen.

You're still dodging my question of whether, in your opinion, the great UK public has the political and intellectual capacity to decide on a matter of political, legal and every other kind of complexity No I am not dodging I am refusing to answer, its a leading irrelevant question because our referendum was not conditional on the intelligence of the people voting, nor should it ever be.

I was curious about why you've lost faith in our collective decision-making
I haven't, I made the point that the question on the first referendum was very objective, "in or out", a second referendum would be a more subjective proposal, "do you think this is a good deal".

Radishal

Don't liken May to Franco or Mussolini. Only a stupid child with no fucking idea what they were talking about would do that.
Are you old enough to vote coming out with bullshit like that.
Tory hater here who lived through the democratically elected Thatcher years.

Bloody well said - too much of these intellectually-challenged comparisons around.

This is very, very telling from the Remoan camp
Today 20:00 MaudOnceMore - "You're still dodging my question of whether, in your opinion, the great UK public has the political and intellectual capacity to decide on a matter of political, legal and every other kind of complexity"

I think your comment just about sums up the disdain Remain have for democracy. No doubt you will be advocating that only those with the appropriate level of political and intellectual capacity should have the right to vote.

And still no answer to the op, in the scenario of a second referendum how do you overcome the incentive for the EU to push for a bad deal?

2nd ref would only be an incentive for EU to produce a bad deal if you think they still want us to remain above all else. Why do you think this?

Kaija
You will have to explain that one..

Are you now saying the LibDim position is to try and rejoin a club that the members no longer want us to be part of?

You want to remain even though the EU doesn't want you? How will that work?

No doubt you will be advocating that only those with the appropriate level of political and intellectual capacity should have the right to vote.

Absolutely, categorically not. The fact that you distort my words and meaning so says far more about you than it does about me.

My answer to whether the electorate has that capacity is yes it does. It is because I do not share your lack of faith in the electorate's ability to reach a view and vote on it that I am questioning why (to paraphrase loosely) you said earlier that the poor, dim electorate wouldn't be able to get their heads around whatever deal has been agreed (whenever it is) and so couldn't and shouldn't be asked to vote on it. And yet you agree that the electorate did just fine last year, hence my asking why you have lost faith in the electorate.

Your still haven't answered that question.

"The president of the European parliament has said Britain would be welcomed back with open arms if voters changed their minds"