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.

So much swearing. I wonder why.
This is the OP's usual modus operandi. Start a goady thread, try to steer the conversation in a particular direction (otherwise 'why the fuck are you still here?'), before resorting to simplistic arguments like 'Why don't you emigrate then?' It's not usually worth engaging with him/her.

Anon213 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!
Just to point out the obvious: a referendum is not remotely the same as an election, so your argument is very weak here.

"I have no price because I am not selling. I want to the UK to leave."

So a bad deal would make you no more inclined to vote remain in a second ref than a good deal. For anon, a bad deal would make a 2nd vote to leave more likely.

You see the problem here.

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.

Sadly, the Brexit vote has created a less tolerant, less open-minded society. Can anyone think of anything that has created more division in the UK? The ultra-rich will do very well out of Brexit (as we're already seeing) and the gap between rich and poor has widened even more as food prices etc are impacted by a weak pound, while the PM says 'there are complex reasons for people using food banks,' without the slightest degree of shame. Brexit is likely to be one of the costliest exercises this country has ever entered. I notice how 'shy' the government is being about the costs of all the negotiators, lawyers etc we will inevitably need.

"I want to live in the UK sovereign and independent from the EU"

So tell us, what's the EU been stopping you from doing that you are just itching to get on with?

Kaija Today 00:48
I guess the answer is "nothing" then. 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"

I am not all Leaver voters. The premise of this thread is regarding proposed policy from the third largest political party in the land that is avowedly Remain. The only way they, the LibDems themselves could hope to win their own proposed second referendum is by persuading a majority of the British electorate that the final deal on the table is not a good one.

QED Diehard Remainers voting in favour of a second referendum at the GE, must want the Brexit negotiations to go as badly as possible for Britain for the next two years so that the final deal is unattractive to a majority of the electorate. If they didn't, they would be less likely to win their own proposed referendum.

"The only way they, the LibDems themselves could hope to win their own proposed second referendum is by persuading a majority of the British electorate that the final deal on the table is not a good one"

A UK party persuading the public that we have a bad deal is very very different to the 27 giving us a bad deal.

Today 06:58 Kaija
"So tell us, what's the EU been stopping you from doing that you are just itching to get on with?"

The EU has removed sovereignty from the UK parliament to an undemocratic European Council and a European Parliament that lacks legislative initiative.

I am itching to get back to a situation where the laws governing my life are made by elected members of parliament that we, the British electorate, can get rid of (at a general election) if we are not happy with them.

You have far more power to stop Theresa May running the United Kingdom, than I do of stopping Junkers running the European Council.

I am itching to get out of what we thought when we joined ("The Common Market") was going to be about trade across 8 broadly similar economies, turning into a supranational, superstate of 28 countries based on a Napoleonic/Prussian "Top Down" model of democracy (where an unelected Executive decides and a rubber stamp parliament approves) and economic policies which are designed primarily to protect German industry and French agriculture (at the expense of the economies of Greeece, Italy, Portugal etc, etc, etc)

Today 07:22 Kaija
"A UK party persuading the public that we have a bad deal is very very different to the 27 giving us a bad deal."

Really?

Both are necessary for you to have a chance of winning your second referendum.

QED Diehard Remainers voting in favour of a second referendum at the GE, must want the Brexit negotiations to go as badly as possible for Britain for the next two years so that the final deal is unattractive to a majority of the electorate. If they didn't, they would be less likely to win their own proposed referendum.

This does not follow at all. The idea behind a second referendum is that a judgement can be made on whether our future is better served by remaining in the EU or out of it when we have a clearer idea of the deal that is on offer. If what is on offer seems likely to give us a better future than we would have inside the EU then presumably Leave would win with a massive majority.

The EU has not removed sovereignty. Even the Brexit white paper acknowledged this.

Let's put this another way. What specific directives have affected you which we will now be able to abandon?

The reason the OP and many other leavers are against another referendum when the options are clearer is they are shit scared people will realise how badly they are going to be personally affected and vote to stay.

I'm not in favour of a second referendum personally so it's a bit of a moot point but I cannot comprehend the OPs logic on this thread other than she's desperate for a fight somewhere

If our government are so fantastic and such great negotiators, how would having a referendum at the end of the process make the slightest difference to what we could negiotiate?

The EU have been quite clear on their stance, they aren't going to play games to try and make us stay.

They've quite rightly said leaving is not going to be a beneficial as staying but why would it ever be?

This paranoia from Leavers astounds me- there is such a strong desire to make an ill informed leap of faith regardless of the consequences and anything that looks like it might prevent that is vehemently opposed.

It's not usually worth engaging with him/her.

Except that I find the combination of goading, sneering and then assuming victim status rather fascinating.

The problem with anon's 'every five years' argument is that this is a one-off. A decision that will change the country irreparably for generations.
Not like an election where we get to review the winner's performance after a few years and can say, no, you didn't deliver on your promises, we're going to vote for the other guys.

In answer to your binary question, of course the Lib Dems want the best deal possible for the country. Even if that makes a 'Leave' vote more likely in a hypothetical second referendum.
We're not the sort of party that puts shallow political gains over the good of the country, have you mixed us up with one of the others?

But as anon points out, we don't get a say in what sort of deal the uk gets anyway, and nor do you, as things stand.
Please tell me how you think these machiavellian lib dems are going to influence Supreme Leader Theresa's negotiations? I'm intrigued.

Nick Cohen @NickCohen4
The insistence of the right that opposition is illegitimate is becoming sinister

This is a lot of it.

It's the anti-democratic shit that Brexit is wrapped up in.

This is why both Labour and Lib Dem Remainers are not going to shut the fuck up or leave threads because they have a point to make.

Notably that point isn't necessarily to the people who start these type of threads it's often to people like them to remind them to continue to be noisy saboteurs who like to tell inconvenient truths.

Being liberal is defined by one paradox: being intolerant of intolerance. I only see Brexit as intolerance as long as there are harsh, aggressive and inhumane attitudes to people who do not conform to particular gender, race, religion and national identity requirements.

I will continue to say we need workers rights, environmental protections and respect for our neighbours because right now all are being directly threatened.

Oh and by the way, come June 9th even if it's a disaster for everyone but the Conservatives (or is it just Theresa May - seeing as she's acting like a presidential candidate), we will still be here and we'll still be telling those nasty little truths.

It's fun watching when people start swearing cos you know nerves have been hit. We are the underdogs now and we'll keep going for twenty or thirty years if we have to.

"Except that I find the combination of goading, sneering and then assuming victim status rather fascinating."

It is my weakness too, HPFA

In fact, if you wanted to get a bad deal out of the EU, the best way would be to put the most extreme Leavers you could find in charge of the process, send one of them out in front of a select committee with no idea of the issues that Brexit will cause, fall out with all the EU leaders, then talk shit about them in the press - Oh. My. God. Is Theresa May actually a genius in disguise? She did campaign for Remain initially...

Accio, David Allen Green posited something rather similar last week.

That's an interesting question, tiggytape

I think your suggestion of a turnout threshold and a 65% vote is a sensible one, it ensures there is a genuine popular movement for change.

Our lack of a written constitution muddies the waters a bit on these sort of things. Not to mention our lack of a concept of an 'advisory referendum', but hey ho.

Is Theresa May actually a genius in disguise?

She should win an Oscar if she is.

The same woman once claimed someone couldn't be deported because of a pet cat.

Our lack of a written constitution muddies the waters a bit on these sort of things

We have a written constitution despite the myth we don't. It's written in lots of different places rather than a nice handy list, because it has changed over time. This makes it more flexible to deal with the passage of time which is generally a good thing. 'Written constitutions' are not necessarily preferable.

I suppose the problem with requiring high turnout and well-over-50% support is that few things would then change or be changeable.

I don't agree. The public mood can change over time. I would give you the example of the C of E voting for Women Bishops - which needed a two thirds majority in all three houses of the General Synod – bishops, clergy and laity. Votes prior to 2014 failed, because of a lack of sufficient votes. Many people were bitterly disappointed but didn't give up and eventually sufficient people were won over and it can be said to be the will of the majority.