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.

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

Ok, in words that a Beleaver can understand.

Unless all parties to the negotiation want the negotiation to fail and see a second referendum as a get out clause then the second referendum won't incentivise a poor deal.

Theresa May and David Davis et al would look ridiculous if they lost the second referendum after banging on and on about how strong and stable they are. So there is no incentive on them to negotiate a crap deal. Some of the EU negotiators no doubt can't wait to get rid of us, some might want us to stay, others might be purely out to get the best deal for their own countries as possible. It would be a foolish tactic to deliberately negotiate a terrible deal on the chance that the UK might change their mind.

I see the second referendum as an extra check and balance once we know what we're actually voting for.

Does anyone else remember those days before the referendum when there were suddenly quite a few new posters posting on single issues with only the occasional foray into other topics? It was interesting, wasn't it? Especially the way they just seemed to evaporate after 23rd June. I wonder if we'll see any of that in the run-up to the June election.

Unless all parties to the negotiation want the negotiation to fail and see a second referendum as a get out clause then the second referendum won't incentivise a poor deal

If Eurocrats want us to leave the EU they all they have to do is stall and in 2 years time we are gone. The idea of a second referendum must surly be predicated on the EU wanting us back?

So of course the UK will try and negotiate a good deal but if the EU want us to vote to remain in the Union in a second referendum they will have to make the 'leavers deal' as unappealing as possible.

Its very simple logic, it encourages the EU to give us a really bad deal. Your still not answering the question.

No, what you repeatedly fail to grasp is that a second referendum is absolutely not predicated on the EU wanting us back. The mood music in Brussels shows clearly that they don't. It is predicated (as someone else just said) on confirming that the UK electorate does indeeed want to leave, not just on the in principle level (which was how we voted last year when none of the detail was known) but once a deal is struck (when it will be, as much as it can).

This is the problem with adopting the politics and worldview of a teenager. This notion that, in the negotiations, the EU will treat us mean to keep us keen belongs in the world of teen romance - it might be how you get the boy on the bus to notice you - but that's not how international diplomacy works. Politics is the art of the possible, and all that.

a second referendum is absolutely not predicated on the EU wanting us back

How does that work then, we have a referendum on something we can't have? What use is that?

They didn't want us in in the first place if you remember, but we got there eventually...

Came across this bar chart again. Thought it was pertinent:

They didn't want us in in the first place if you remember, but we got there eventually...

So your saying you actually think a second referendum would be on leave and stay out, or leave and try and get back in even though they currently dont want us?

Should have added the below

So your saying you actually think a second referendum would be on leave and stay out, or leave and try and get back in even though they currently dont want us and half our country doesn't want to go back?

The Green Party have also announced recently that they support a second referendum. So not just the Lib Dems.

I would say the question is leave on the basis of the negotiated deal or stay put. It's not about whether anyone wants us or not, which all sounds rather emotional. It's about the legality of whether triggering article 50 and then changing our minds after we know more about the implications means we can cancel article 50 and stay in after all.

As we're the first country to test this legislation then it'll be down to the lawyers. They're the real winners in this whole process.

"So your saying you actually think a second referendum would be on leave and stay out, or leave and try and get back in even though they currently dont want us?"

Nope

StripeyMonkey

Theresa May has already ruled out the possibility of remaining in the EEA, although after a GE it might be a possibility because the UK was in EFTA before it joined the EU.

Cant seem to get a straight answer from remainers.

So who is actually saying they don't want us ? It is not what I am hearing on the continent

So its either, the EU wants us to stay in which case they are incentivised to give us really bad deal so we vote to stay. Not heard any remainer square that away yet.

Or The mood music in Brussels shows clearly that they don't (want us back)

In which case a second referendum result could end in us fighting Brussels in the ECJ to revoke A50 and the other countries fighting to not let A50 be revoked. Isn't that nuts?

So what am I missing? Where is the logic of a second referendum, rather than the forlorn sentiment that we can turn the clock back?

Anon213

A leaked European Parliament resolution says that Article 50 can be revoked.

Perhaps, like most of us, the EU just wants the least damaging outcome. But this seems to be an alien concept for hardcore leavers, who as far as I can tell just want to keep on feeling like they've won their Brexit medal, no matter what the cost.

A leaked European Parliament resolution says that Article 50 can be revoked. Does that make it (legally, enforceable, 100%) true? If the EU don't want us to stay in the union then they could fight us in the ECJ to stop it being revoked. Maybe they would lose. Is that a tenable position to be in, forcing the EU to keep us union against their will?

Perhaps, like most of us, the EU just wants the least damaging outcome

But what is the least damaging outcome for the EU?
Negotiating a punishment deal in the hopes we change our mind and stay, but risk us leaving on WTO terms.
Or negotiating the best possible deal for both sides so that when we leave we both flourish?

"Where is the logic of a second referendum, rather than the forlorn sentiment that we can turn the clock back?"

Haha. Oh the irony.

"Negotiating a punishment deal"

No, they won't do that. Leavers assured us that's just project fear. German cars you know.

They need us more than we need them.

Today 07:13 MariafromMalmo
"Well that sadly shows the intellect of your 14 year old...The Lib Dems should come out even stronger and just say "Brexit is Off"

Well thanks MarianfromMalmo, so now Remoaners not only get to say Leavers are thick, but also our children too. Nice..

But of course we're led to believe Remoaners never stoop so low as to doubt their opponents intellect merely because they have the temerity to ask them to explain their logic...

Which you haven't yet done by the way.

I am grateful to you for your second point. This would be a more logical election proposal

Optional, you are a hoot.

Today 13:45 twofingerstoEverything
"Does anyone else remember those days before the referendum when there were suddenly quite a few new posters posting on single issues with only the occasional foray into other topics?"

Oooh conspiracies, conspiracies... how exciting!!