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.

in the scenario of a second referendum how do you overcome the incentive for the EU to push for a bad deal?

Yes, you're quite right. The 27 states are desperate for us to remain. Jean Claude Juncker was saying so just the other day. Oh, hang on.

I have said nothing either about what I personally want, or about the lib dem position.

I am just curious to know why you think the EU would be so desperate to keep the UK as members at this point that this would override all other considerations in negotiation.

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

Thanks for that, anon. That's encouraging, and very democratic.

Can we even decide to tell the EU that we've changed our mind and we'd like to stay?

Doesn't triggering Article 50 put us on a firm Leave track?

"why you think the EU would be so desperate to keep the UK"

Well first it would be to get our budget contributions.
Second it would be the ideological belief in an EU super state of the whole of Europe.

At the moment the best guess is that we will get:

1. a Norway style deal;
2. a Canada style deal; or
3. no deal.

(I have not included the "cake and eat it" deal as (a) I don't think even Boris now thinks it will be on the table and (b) if that is available the answer from the public would be such a strong "yes" to Leave that a second referendum would be not threat).

I think we already know in broad terms what each of these types of deals looks like. What we don't know is which one the Tories will opt for.

I'd quite like to have a say when we know which option might be on the table. Would you not? If not, why not?

Sigh....

Someone's been looking for a scrap and didn't get one elsewhere.

drinks some welsh tea calmly

Would you like some cake with that tea Red?

And jam. Innovative jam.

Ooo yes biscuits too.

Given Leavers get told we are dim, embarrassing, worthy of pity and don't understand complexities every single day on this site, I genuinely wanted to check if was missing something obvious.

You don't start a thread and then repeat phrases like Remoaner if you are being genuine...

There were plenty of intelligent people who voted leave. There were plenty of sound reasons for wanting to leave the EU.

These are not solutions to the question of what we do next though. They also cover a wide range of different schools of thought.

Leavers were all encouraged by the leave campaigns to form their own ideas of what they wanted in order to win their vote.

I have more of a problem with the way Brexit is being handled than Brexit itself. How it has been high jacked by one particular group of Brexiteers without proper consultation and accountability. The lack of transparency is appalling. The language used to undermine democratic debate and institutions , the lack of condemnation of the behaviour of the press, the sucking up to Trump which undermines our soveignity in other ways, the use of propaganda technics to force things through rather than trying to reassure and get rid of fears, the scapegoating of various groups and individuals to deflect from inaquencencies, trying to silence critics with the use of words like Remoaners and saboteurs rather than engaging properly in an honest debate, it's about the possibility of Henry VIII powers removing power from Parliament which is totally against what leave said about restoring Parliament's power.

I could carry on...

I can't say I'm particularly on board with the idea of second ref, but it is about one thing that I wholeheartedly think is important: it's about government accountability to the public and having to lay out a coherent plan that everyone can discuss openly and transparently.

If the government could perhaps do this in other ways I think I'd be more in board with that.

As it stands though, the idea of a second referendum is more largely symbolic rather than having any chance of happening. That in itself is important though and again comes back to government accountability and as I say I don't necessarily think you need a referendum to do that. Suggesting one is a nice neat and concise way of bringing all these ideas and presenting to the public.

It's about actively allowing everyone - not just leavers - to decide what Brexit should be. Noting here that many Remainers were reluctant and actually quite Eurosceptic rather than being pro-European.

Hope that answers your question.

As I say I though I'm far from convinced you a genuinely interested. I'd love you to prove me wrong.

Yes, I agree, RedToothBrush. I'm no huge fan of referenda - precisely because they are not nuanced and reduce complex matters to a tick (or not) in a box - but they do increase public participation in decision-making and in this instance could provide some scrutiny and accountability. After all, there are plenty of other situations in life where one takes a decision in principle and then gets the opportunity to confirm that decision once the contract's been drawn up.

Maud, RedtoothBrush
"As it stands though, the idea of a second referendum is more largely symbolic rather than having any chance of happening."

"but they do increase public participation in decision-making and in this instance could provide some scrutiny and accountability. After all, there are plenty of other situations in life where one takes a decision in principle and then gets the opportunity to confirm that decision once the contract's been drawn up"

You still haven't addressed the question raised thread.
1. The LibDems are avowedly Remain
2. They want the outcome of their second referendum to be a final "No Thanks" to the deal to leave
3. For 1 and 2 to happen, the terms of the exit deal should be as punitive, negative, unattractive, and painful as possible.

If you or anyone else can explain the logic of this I would be very grateful.

If you can't, I am pleased that my 14 year old has proven conclusively that LibDem support for Second Referendum is, by necessity, also support for the negotiations to go as badly as possible and for the final deal to be as unattractive as possible to the British electorate.

Maybe they think that a lot of leavers will have changed their mind. Nigel Farage has admitted that the £350m a week figure won't necessarily go to the NHS. The "British Bill of Rights" has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Human Rights was established by the Council of Europe (which the UK isn't leaving). It's possible that a lot of British fruit and veg will disappear from supermarket shelves because there won't be enough people to pick them (most of them are currently non-British EU citizens).

After listening to Jeremy Hunt on Andrew Marr yesterday maybe people like the Op are less optomistic. Hunt when asked how much money there will be for the NHS said - well we don't know it depends on how Brexit goes - Surely it's £350 m a week....

Ok, I'll have a go as I'm a Lib dem member.

We didn't want to leave the EU. We think that the public were misled in the first referendum - £350m a week to the NHS, talk of various scenarios for staying in the single market, not clear that it would be a hard Brexit etc. This €100 billion euro exit fee wasn't on the table when we voted in the first referendum.

Since then a YouGov poll has shown that a majority of people think the decision to leave was wrong.

Personally, I don't want to leave so however the negotiations go, I won't be convinced that leaving is in the national interest but I want the deal agreed to be the best that we can possibly get so that our economy isn't left in tatters.

Given that none of us know what deal will be negotiated then Lib Dems believe that the public should have the final say on whether it's acceptable. None of us are small minded, arrogant or ignorant enough to want the deal to be deliberately terrible and risk that the majority of the public are so determined to leave that they vote in favour of it anyway. That would be economically suicidal.

So, there's the logic. Give the public the final say and if we collectively don't agree that it's in the best interest of the country and would prefer to remain, we remain.

No and I'm not going to address them because you are just on a mission to have a go at everything. You are disingenuous in your attitude. It's almost as if you are threatened by the idea of the LDs disagreeing with your position. The LDs have 9 MPs and at best will get 20 at the GE. They know, and everyone else knows there is no change they can reverse Brexit. It's funny how their position still rattles some though.

Being remain does not necessarily mean the LDs are now out to do everything to stop Brexit. By definition of being an opposition party opposing something means not necessarily stopping it completely but trying to get concessions and a 'less worse compromise'. It's part of holding the government to account for the decisions they do make but you might not like. Like any other policy.

It's called democratic process in a parliamentary system. It happens all the time and opposition parties as a point of principle remain opposed to a idea but will try and ensure what does happen is better than the original proposals.

I've answered your question - not for you, but for the general benefit of others - and as such I'm not going to get into the scrap you so desperately want because it's unproductive.

Symbolism is a funny old business.

The Liberal Democrats believe in the idea international cooperation and acceptance. Just like Labour believe in socialism and Conservatives believe in capitalism.

Equally international cooperation, socialism and capitalism are not exclusive to their respective parties but they do form a key pillar in their ideology. It's the main thing that makes them differ from the others.

You don't start a thread and then repeat phrases like Remoaner if you are being genuine. Why not? Its a very common word now and perfectly describes remainers who are complaining all the time about Brexit.

The lack of transparency is appalling What part of the current Brexit process do you think needs to be public? It seems TM has been very transparent about her position.

the possibility of Henry VIII powers removing power from Parliament which is totally against what leave said about restoring Parliament's power TM is part of Parliament, if we dont like what she is doing we can vote her out aka a general election. This is exactly what leave wanted. Unlike decisions being taken in Brussels which the UK is unable to vote down.

It's about actively allowing everyone - not just leavers - to decide what Brexit should be Why? Leave won the referendum, why should the losers have any say in the Brexit they want to stop. That's like saying Labour should be given a role in government even when they lose the election.

There is no "Good Deal" to be had That comment is exactly why remoaners should have no say what so ever in Brexit decisions.

We think that the public were misled in the first referendum Tell me any election anywhere where the losers dont say this in retrospective. The time to say this was before the referendum, and if no one listened to you then its just sour grapes.

a YouGov poll has shown that a majority of people think the decision to leave was wrong Seriously, your selecting one poll where the result was within the margin of error to explain why the actually referendum should be overturned.

tygr you didn't give a single reason explaining how to stop a second referendum incentivising the worst possible deal!

Why not? Its a very common word now and perfectly describes remainers who are complaining all the time about Brexit.

There are many very common words which sum up the mentality of people who use the word remoaner but if I were to repeatedly use them I would be being rude and uneccessarily goady. Same thing.

Remoaners should have no say in negotiations.

Is a Remoaner someone who voted Remain and still thinks we are up shit creek . That's me. I accept the result and despair at the stupidity of some who voted Leave. I respect those who made a reasoned leap of faith but they seem fewer and further between in my experience. Which internment camp should I report to because I still think it was a ghastly outcome? Hope it has nice loos.