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.

This discussion ain't going anywhere

Seems so, we cant get any logical answer about the consequences of a second referendum.

Either the Eu doesn't want us any more and will give us a good deal. Or the EU doesn't want us anymore and will give us a good deal. Just cause.

I never advocate going to court to solve a problem that is non-existent or capable of being resolved in other ways.

Why repeat the canard that withdrawing the Article 50 notification would mean going to court? There's no evidence yet for that. Article 50 is silent on whether, once given, a notification can be withdrawn and there are eminent lawyers who take the view that, legally, there's nothing to stop the UK changing its mind. Whether that's viable politically is another matter.

Ok, anon, your position is a little too far through the looking glass for me. I will leave you to it.

capable of being resolved in other ways

Ok how do we resolve the issue of staying in a union that doesn't want us and we have triggered the auto eject button? (without incentivising a bad deal)

Whether that's viable politically is another matter

Your wrong on that because lawyers have already started the process of taking the matter to the ECJ to battle it out, its not just political its legal. And whilst the Lid Dems might not want to take it to the ECJ, if the EU doesn't want us then they will take it to the ECJ.

Kaija I accept its uncommon but Wonderland? Fair enough.

Whether that's viable politically is another matter That's a paraphrase of the views of extremely eminent lawyers I've been reading. There may well be other lawyers inviting the ECJ to deliver a view, but that is theirs.

Anyway, Kaija is, alas, right. It'd be nice to have a thoughtful conversation about all of these questions, but as you seem to be deaf to anything people say to you and keep asking for the same question to be answered a zillion times - I guess because you hope the answer might change - we really do seem to be in a parallel universe.

I've got some knitting to be getting on with.

I believe the Lib Dem line is, 'The British people voted for a departure, not a destination' which seems fair enough to me.

Pre-referendum, the papers were full of 'The Norway model', The Switzerland model' etc options, and now it's all apparently the hard Brexit WTO model, with no further debate? WTF? And that's what we all knew we were voting for?

Anon, your comment, "Leave won the referendum, why should the losers have any say in the Brexit they want to stop" is probably the most anti-democratic thing I've read all year - I voted the wrong way once, so now my opinions are invalid indefinitely?
Cheers.
Do I get to vote in general elections, or am I ruled out of that as well for my treacherous thinking?

"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."

Anon, do you know how long it takes to negotiate a trade deal? It takes years. Far longer than two years. Do you think that these negotiations just take place over a weekend and it'll be left until a few days before the two years runs out?

Because that really is delusion.

Yesterday 22:31 Kaija
"I have said nothing either about what I personally want, or about the lib dem position"

Er.. then why the fuck are you on this thread? What is the question asked in the title?

Don't be too upset, optional. Threads move on. Not every post is in direct response to the original. It's how it works.

Yes Maud, we shall agree to disagree, thanks for engaging. You have given your opinion I think you still haven't explained why the referendum doesn't push a bad deal but that's debate for you.

There may well be other lawyers inviting the ECJ to deliver a view, but that is theirs. And when lawyers disagree we all know what happens.

I voted the wrong way once, so now my opinions are invalid That's how elections/referendum works every five(ish) years. The winner makes the laws, I dont remember Blair putting Tories into his cabinet!

do you know how long it takes to negotiate a trade deal? It takes years
It can take years and it can take months. (The US takes on average 18 months to do a trade deal). Unique amongst trade deals we are already 100% EU compliant so a trade deal is all politics, no reason why it has to take years if we dont want it to.

But optional, while you're here I'd be very interested to know your answer to the question I put earlier:

"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?"

Anon's answer was very surprising: she would be prepared to switch to remain if the EU offered us a) no deal or b) to join the Eurozone and Schengen. But nothing in between. Are you on the same page? If it's a common view amongst leavers then the EU just won't know which way to turn when it comes to gaming the negotiations with regard to a 2nd ref, and your original question becomes a whole lot more complicated.

Today 07:23 tygr
"Ok, I'll have a go as I'm a Lib dem member. We didn't want to leave the EU. Personally, I don't want to leave so however the negotiations go, I won't be convinced that leaving is in the national interest. 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"

LibDem logic above summarised:

1. We should remain in the EU
2. How ever the negotiations go, I won't be convinced of leaving
3. Have a second referendum
4. If it is a decision to remain, we remain

Question for you tygr which of the following two binary possibilities will make your desired outcome - point 4 above ("If it is a decision to remain, we remain") more likely?
1. LibDems want us to get the best possible deal for the UK which is therefore attractive to the British electorate in a second referendum and we confirm the decision to leave
2. LibDems want us to get a bad deal from the next two years of negotiations, which is therefore unattractive to the British electorate in a second referendum and we decide to Remain after all.

It is binary.

Yesterday 22:35 Kaija
"Ok, anon, your position is a little too far through the looking glass for me. I will leave you to it"

So why the fuck are you still here? You clearly have no answer to the question posed..

So much swearing. I wonder why.

Do you have an answer to the question I posed? Because unless we know what sort of deal would persuade leavers to remain, your question is not very meaningful.

Nothing?

Yesterday 19:24 MariafromMalmo
"I would say that you child has the normal intellect of a 14 year old, or in that rather withering phrase, bright but not gifted. What he has not done is challenge or even recognise his own assumptions. Perhaps he could ask himself, what should the EU's priorities be in these negotiations and why?"

No doubt, you, MariafromMalmo, have children who are bright AND gifted. If you want to start a thread on the "EU's priorities in the negotiations and why", please feel free to start a thread for your bright and gifted children on that topic.

This thread is about the logic of avowed Remainers wanting a second referendum and the logical conclusion about what Remainers' aspirations are for the next two years of negotiations.

So what would persuade you to vote remain in a 2nd ref, optional?

I guess the answer is "nothing" then.

And if the EU can do nothing terrible enough to persuade leave voters to switch to remain, then there is no incentive for the EU to "give us a bad deal", and the whole premise of this thread rather falls apart.

Today 00:08 Kaija
"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?"

I have no price because I am not selling. I want to the UK to leave. I want the EU to succeed and prosper without us. I wish them well. I want the UK to succeed and prosper outside the EU. To achieve this, I want us to negotiate the best possible deal for the UK and the EU 27. A second referendum, makes this less likely

You keep changing the question.

Anyway, in response to the one you asked me, I want Theresa May to negotiate a deal to leave that I can live with that won't disadvantage me and my children's future, as there's a very high chance Brexit will happen, even if we get a second referendum. I don't want the deal on the table to be awful and leave the UK in a terrible economic mess, as I believe I said on this thread a while ago. I would also like the public to be able to weigh up the pros and cons based on knowing with more certainty exactly what the terms are and what the future outside the EU looks like and not based on the rhetoric of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michal Gove, Andrea Leadsom et al.

I do think it's democratic to get another say on it once we know what we're voting on. It's highly unlikely I'd ever become a leave voter but I'm not idiotic enough to want to deliberately sabotage the negotiations because there are too many interests at stake to make that anything other than a risky and very expensive strategy. This thread demonstrates that people are determined to leave irrespective of what that means in reality and I don't suppose they'll change their minds either.

I think it's a very sorry state of affairs and I'm not very optimistic for the future of this country. Would seriously consider emigrating.

Today 00:48 Kaija
"I guess the answer is "nothing" then."
No "guessing" necessary. I am principally opposed to the EU because it is flawed by design, undemocratic, grossly unfair to the economies of Southern Europe, corrupt, unaccountable, bureaucratic, with parliament that lacks legislative initiative.

I could go on.

And if the EU can do nothing terrible enough to persuade leave voters to switch to remain, then there is no incentive for the EU to "give us a bad deal", and the whole premise of this thread rather falls apart.

In his own comments Junkers has said "Brexit cannot be successful" because he knows it will lead to the whole house of cards coming tumbling down.

For avowed Remainers, the idea of a second referendum is a very different matter. In order for you to achieve your desired outcome (I.e. over 50% of the electorate agreeing with you, that the final deal to leave is unattractive), you must therefore be hoping that the negotiations don't go well for the UK.

If you don't - you're saying you hope you lose your own baby

Today 01:08 tygr
"Would seriously consider emigrating."
If you are so desperate to remain in the EU, you have 27 options open to you. I want to live in the UK sovereign and independent from the EU. I have only one option open to me.

My post from 1:14
Of course I meant to say "You hope you lose your own referendum"

I want to live in the U.K., within the EU, in a tolerant and open-minded society without a widening gap between rich and poor, a spiralling national debt and public services in crisis. I have NO choice.