'People's Vote' - is it pie in the sky? Is there simply not enough time left?

[Ihaventgottimeforthis]

I think there is increasing momentum behind the idea of a 'People's Vote', as a second referendum on the 'Final Deal'.
But reading this Jack of Kent blogpost from December last year, he thought we were running out of time then, let alone ten months later.
jackofkent.com/2017/12/there-will-soon-not-be-enough-time-for-a-further-referendum-before-29-march-2019/

Essentially, we can't vote on the Final Deal until we know what it is, we need new (and better) legislation, we need time for a campaign and we need a procedure to revoke A50. And that's even if the idea of a second referendum was supported by the government or the opposition.
So (as much as I would LOVE Brexit to be reversed as it's the Worst Idea Ever) I think this People's Vote campaign is a distraction and false hope.

Can anyone with more knowledge tell me different? Please? Pretty Please?

I think i said this I havntgottimeforthis and unfortunately it is true
Greece elected populist politicians for years, whoever offered them the people most beer seemed to get elected, then it all went tits up and they blamed everyone but themselves.
I never voted for brexit or for Cameron but I know a majority (albeit parliamentary in Cameron's case) voted for it. I personally don't deserve it but with the collective will of the British people, the far right press propaganda, rabble rouser politicians and the spineless government and opposition we do deserve a shit sandwich if only for people to realise that's what stupidity and bigotry brings

If there is a vote it will the deal or no deal not "remain" as a third choice. Profoundly unfair as remain would win as it would split leavers into 2 camps.

It's completely ludicrous to expect remain to be an option in a vote on the deal.

The vote won't happen anyway.

Why is it completely ludicrous if it is a) still a viable option and b) the preferred option of a significant % of the voting population?

Surely in a democracy people are allowed to change their minds?!

I don't know why Leavers are so worried that Remain would win in any case, if the prospect of No Deal is so attractive...

IF there is another vote, the 2 questions should be accept whatever deal TM has negotiated (or not) or Remain in the EU.

5year has a point, it is unfair to frame any vote with an inbuilt disadvantage to Leave.

I don't know why Leavers are so worried that Remain would win in any case

Yes I don't get that either. With any political viewpoint if supporters have a genuine belief that it is the best course they would be happy to debate and vote on it. If you can demonstrate tangible benefits of your belief then you should be confident that the substantive merits will win the debate.

Being afraid of revisiting an issue suggests that you know the cons outweigh any pros.

5year has a point, it is unfair to frame any vote with an inbuilt disadvantage to Leave.

Don't agree with this.

Usually in a referendum you have a choice between the change that you're voting on, and the status quo.

How could any government, knowing the consequences (and they do), legitimately go to the people asking them to approve "no deal"?

If people were "too thick" to understand the consequences of a referendum (as many remainers say ) how do you think they'd get on with understanding the detail of, and voting on whether to accept a trade deal?!

The whole question of another referendum and putting a trade deal to the public is totally ridiculous.

If there is a vote it will the deal or no deal not "remain" as a third choice. Profoundly unfair as remain would win as it would split leavers into 2 camps.

That's daft. It's not unfair to give people a chance to vote for what they actually want. You only think it is because you want to leave above all else. I don't think the majority of leavers want to leave whatever the cost- I certainly don't think the majority of leave voters voted for hard, no deal Brexit.

Labour's position seems to be completely contradictory: saying on one hand that they will vote down a deal in parliament, but then saying that they would include an option to vote for a deal (presumably the same one they had just voted down) in a referendum.

And all this presumes that there will actually be a deal, which doesn't look at all certain at the moment.

It looks increasingly likely at this point that there will be no deal, so the referendum would be remain or leave with no deal.

If a deal is reached, Justine Greening's suggestion of using STV to allow three options would work; remain, leave with proposed deal, leave with no deal. Leavers can vote No.1 to their preferred option and No.2 to their second favourite. If their No.1 is the least popular option and is eliminated, the vote transfers to the other leave option. So leave won't miss out.

If the vote in 2016 had said 'do you want your income tax to go up by 10%. yes or no. Would that have been simple enough for everyone to work out?
It is looking as if 10% might be an underestimate (although it won't appear as a tax as such, just everything getting 10% more expensive, pretty much the same thing).

The problem with having 2 leave choices, is that remain would almost certainly win as the leave vote is split, so for evermore we d be subject to taunts from Leave that the vote was unfair.

TBH they'd have a point, after all the original referendum was a binary choice!

As to the public not understanding the vagaries of a trade deal? well, in that case there should never have been a vote in the first place.

Maybe there could be 4 choices, 2 for remain and 2 for leave!

Maybe there could be 4 choices, 2 for remain and 2 for leave!

Yeah that would work. 🤔

Remain and remain

Or remain and .......

There aren't 2 realistic Leave votes either.

No deal isn't going to work.

You wouldn't just have one vote. You number the choices.

If one of the options got a simple majority of first preferences then that wins. After that second choices are taken into account. The exact way the votes are redistributed would depend on the system used.

It would be fair and a Brexit supporter could choose soft Brexit 1 and hard Brexit 2.

The trouble is so few members of the British public understand preferential voting many would assume it was 'unfair' and 'undemocratic' if they lost. I really am beginning to despair about this country.

I've posted this on another thread but it clears up confusion about split votes.

Justine Greening suggested this AV option.

Voters would rank two of the three options in first and second place.

If one option received a simple majority it would win.

If there was no simple majority.

The option with the fewest first place preferences would be eliminated.

If not the second preferences of the third ranked option would be reallocated to the top two.

The option with the most votes after the reallocation would win.

Totally fair. No split vote.

I god I feel so stupid but that doesn't make sense to me, is this going to confuse half the electorate which would be totally unfair.

@Moussemoose , I agree that is the way forward!

This is what we need... I am really hoping that it will come to be!

How is it confusing? It's a far more common electoral system around the world than first past the post. Least popular option is eliminated but those votes get redistributed to the second choice. Look up Single Transferable Vote.

AV isn't the same as STV.

Sorry yes I get what you mean now.

By what mechanism are people expecting the creation of another vote?!

Unless the tories put it forward in parliament and there is a vote on having another vote, or there is a GE and another party get in and do the same, there won't be a vote.

I don't believe the Tories are going to do either, and they are the only ones who could.

Exactly Blackcurrant, why on earth would the Tories want to do either.

The mechanism is parliamentary sovereignty.

If the government does not propose a referendum there could be a vote of no confidence. It the government loses they may well be forced into having a referendum as the price of continuing in government.

MPs need to act as their conscience dictates and not just follow the party whip.

It's all perfectly possible.