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.

are you suggesting that you want David Davis to help the prosperity of the EU Yes, it seems to me that it is in the interests of both sides to do a good deal for the EU and the UK. Unless of course your goal is to scare other members, to stop them even considering trying to escape.

What would a mutually beneficial settlement with regard to EU immigration be Not sure what would benefit the EU, why would they care what our policy is? Aside from trying to keep us in the EU of course. From the UKs side I am happy to try whatever policy the government suggests. As long as its the UK government that decides, so we can change them at next election if need be.

The Lib Dems should come out even stronger and just say "Brexit is Off"
Yes I agree this is a more logical argument.

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

What a lovely way to spend your time, goading people so that when they react you can insult them whilst convincing yourself you're the victim.

Plenty of people have explained the rationale behind the Second Referendum. You could choose to simply say you disagree or you can choose to insult them. Your responsibility.

HPFA I wish mumsnet had a like button. Instead have this on me .

Maria, I think figment was joking - was in response to my post about the German cars.

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

Just because you disagree with our logic, doesn't mean we haven't repeatedly presented any.

The clue to why the Lib Dems wouldn't propose just that Brexit is off is in the name. It's the Liberal Democrats. Completely ignoring the referendum result would be undemocratic. And before you start, giving the people another say with fuller information is democratic.

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?

No, for the umpteenth time, the aim of the second referendum would be to confirm that - having decided to leave at a time when all that was available was some promises and predictions about what would happen next and what Brexit would look like - the electorate is still content to leave once it's seen the terms on which we would do so.

Plenty of people have explained the rationale behind the Second Referendum

Yes I agree they have but none have explained how to deal with one of the consequences of a second referendum. The incentive to give the UK a terrible deal.

Except of course to say the EU dont want us back and we should force them to take us back whether they want it or not.

giving the people another say with fuller information is democratic

Only there is no reason to think we would have more information and the act of having the second referendum incentivises a bad deal which the Lib Dems probably dont care about because all they want is to elect a few more MPs is to stop Brexit. Democratic, maybe on the surface, but definitely disingenuous and self serving.

MaudOnceMore

Yes you have explained your position, but you never answer the consequence of your position, incentivising a bad deal!

That's because I've also explained repeatedly that your child’s premise - that the EU will offer a deal that’s worse than it would otherwise have been, in the hope of persuading us to stay - is false.

There is very little evidence that, now, the 27 states want us to remain; for the most part, their stance seems to be that we've made our collective bed and now have to lie on it. There have been indications that any eventual application to rejoin might be looked on favourably, but that’s a very different scenario. There may well be reasons why the EU might pursue a harsh exit settlement (to discourage any other member states who are toying with leaving, perhaps) but winning back the hearts and minds of the UK electorate won’t be one of them.

Yeah. I was joking - I can't do emoticons on my phone. I didn't think anyone still said 'they need us more than we need them' with a straight face anymore, except below the line in the daily mail.

I've also explained repeatedly that your child’s premise - that the EU will offer a deal that’s worse than it would otherwise have been, in the hope of persuading us to stay - is false

Its the OP that is talking about their child's premise, not me. Yes you have said the premise is false but you haven't explained the logic behind saying its false. If the EU want us to stay then they would want us to conclude its a bad deal and therefore vote to stay, so they would have an incentive to make sure it was a bad deal. So how is this false?

Unless your saying the EU don't want us to stay and you want us to fight in the ECJ against the EU and get A50 revoked, then we are leaving the EU regardless, so what is the point in another referendum?

They need us more than we need them:

Just returning to comment on this

Only there is no reason to think we would have more information

What? From a strong field, that must be your most disingenuous statement yet.

We quite patently would have more information. At the time of the referendum, both sides were offering what were essentially statements of intent. By the time the exit arrangements are agreed (assuming for the moment that they are), we will have far more information about how far those intentions have been realised: will substantial sums of additional money be going into the NHS (to take the most obvious example)? will we have an immigration policy that matches that outlined in the referendum campaign? and so on.

Leavers, in the unlikely event of a second referendum, what would the EU need to do to secure your vote to remain? What's your price?

It's false because the EU has decided not to do the Pick Me dance
OK so all EU politicians tell the gods honest truth and all UK politicians are lying. Ok you win, I give up.

We quite patently would have more information
Not quite so obvious to me. I have heard many times that we will decide when the UK has decided whether its leaving or not. If we had another referendum I can see the EU leaving the real negotiations until we have really really decided if we are leaving.

will substantial sums of additional money be going into the NHS
Again we wont be able to know this until after the second real negotiations take place and we really really leave the UK.

will we have an immigration policy that matches that outlined in the referendum campaign
Again we wont be able to know this until after the second real negotiations take place and we really really leave the UK.

So its just a rerun of the first referendum, whats the point? Would there be a best of three? And if not why not?

So still no answer to incentivising the bad deal conundrum, except now the EU aren't doing a dance, apparently!

in the unlikely event of a second referendum, what would the EU need to do to secure your vote to remain? What's your price?

I want to either be fully in or fully out. I hate this division of being half in and holding the EU back. If we had the option of fully leave or fully stay, the Euro, Schengen, the whole shebang and the country supported it, then I would be on board.

"We quite patently would have more information
Not quite so obvious to me. I have heard many times that we will decide when the UK has decided whether its leaving or not. If we had another referendum I can see the EU leaving the real negotiations until we have really really decided if we are leaving.

will substantial sums of additional money be going into the NHS
Again we wont be able to know this until after the second real negotiations take place and we really really leave the UK.

will we have an immigration policy that matches that outlined in the referendum campaign
Again we wont be able to know this until after the second real negotiations take place and we really really leave the UK.

So its just a rerun of the first referendum, whats the point? Would there be a best of three? And if not why not?"

Because we've triggered article 50 which has set in motion a two year negotiation period when we either 1) negotiate a deal to leave, 2) don't manage to agree a deal so leave without one with World Trade Organisation rules in place or decide to revoke article 50 and stay.

If we don't have any more information on the deal in two years time then we've run out of negotiation time and we're leaving deal-less. That's why a referendum at that point makes sense.

Hopefully its obvious I meant the EU.
Again we wont be able to know this until after the second real negotiations take place and we really really leave the EU.

So still no answer to incentivising the bad deal conundrum

I'll make this simple, as it seems to be going over your head.

The answer to the conundrum is there is no conundrum. The conundrum only exists in the heads of people who believe that

the EU wants us to stay. There was some evidence of that a while ago but the EU's collective attitude now seems closer to "don't let the door hit you on the behind on your way out"

and/or

because the EU wants us to stay, it will dance the pick me dance It doesn't, so it won't

and/or

the EU will treat us mean, to keep us keen International institutions do not behave in the same way as teenagers trying to hang on to a date

Because we've triggered article 50 which has set in motion a two year negotiation period But according to remainers the EU don't want us any more so are just shrugging their shoulders and saying 'whatever'.

Whats to stop them stalling until after we have the second referendum and then trying to negotiate a trade deal? Then we are in no mans land having a referendum with no new information and already out of the EU. So whats the point? And how have you solved the incentive for a bad deal conundrum, other than dancing?

The conundrum only exists in the heads of people who believe that the EU wants us to stay

Ok I understand now that remainers differ on there opinion of whether the EU wants us to stay or not.

So Maud do you advocate taking the EU to court to force them to let us stay in the EU?

"want to either be fully in or fully out. I hate this division of being half in and holding the EU back. If we had the option of fully leave or fully stay, the Euro, Schengen, the whole shebang and the country supported it, then I would be on board."

Seriously? You are a leaver who would prefer to have the Euro and be part of Schengen than the deal we currently have? That is certainly a niche position.

The Essence of this thread:

Leavers: What to Liberal Democrats believe? What is the point?
Remainers: They believe in Liberalism, Internationalism, Parliamentary Democracy and Government Accountability.
Leavers: Oh, well I don't believe in any of that so its shit. I am happy with authoritarian, nationalism and my own personal definition of 'democracy. You are all wrong and should simply do as Leave tell you.

This discussion ain't going anywhere.

Yes Kaija I actually like the idealism of the EU and a lot of what its doing. But the UK doesn't seem to want to be part of it and seems to be on the side lines carping all the time, holding the EU back from trying to create a better continent (maybe failing who knows).

I am a pragmatist and want both the EU and UK to succeed, and I genuinely think the UK has to pick a side. This whole inbetweener thing is damaging both sides. So I DO NOT prefer one side or the other, I just want the UK to choose. And I think it has, I really do, I cant see how we can ever put the genie back in the bottle.