Second Referendum

[MyNameIsArthur]

If there was a second referendum, how would you phrase the question on the ballot paper? I thought maybe it should be phrased in the following way in two parts but I'm not sure. What do you think?

A) Do you wish for the UK to Remain in the EU or to leave the EU ?

B) If the majority of the UK votes to leave the EU, do you wish for the UK to leave with:

                    1         Theresa May's deal
                    2          No deal

Remain vs May's deal.

Remain lost in 2016 so should not be an option.

Remain didn't lose against May's deal. Totally different.

It's like saying "Do you want pizza or salad?" "Pizza" "Ok - it's pizza topped with salad cream and gravel" "No, I want salad". Too late, you chose pizza! Context is everything.

You know how lots of people say about a PV blah blah anti democratic there shouldn't be a second go- what would it be then best of three blah blah ?

Actually I was thinking there's a logic to a progression of three:

2016- advisory ref to explore the options for leaving.

2018- now the gov have costed this do we still want to pursue it further?

20XX- now we have a deal nailed down in detail is this what we really want.

I know the fact that Art 50 ha been triggered is a cataclysmic problem in that suggestion... but there's a logical argument of input in stages as consequences are known. (Not that it should have been put to the electorate in the first place. )

I don't know if my post was clear, but the biscuit was for the pp who I was quoting, the one who thinks that if something was voted on once it can never be voted on again. "Remain lost in 2016 so shouldn't be on the ballot in a new ref"- pish.

Thanks for posting the 3 blokes in a pub video @1tisILeClerc which I watched with great interest. I happened to catch an interview between the Director of Trade ad Competition of International Economic Affairs and Nigel Farage (). Some points made in the 3 blokes in a pub clip contradict what the director of the IEA said. I will reference these individually, but tend to believe the IEA guy is more of an authority.
As a remark to all this as well, according to Patrick Mingford, we don’t need any trade deal to trade WTO or otherwise .

1. No one trades on WTO rules alone. It will take years to have our tariff schedule ratified Mauritania trades under WTO rules only.
   In the IEA interview tariff ratification is covered about 47mins into the video.
2. Tariffs do not go both ways I am not sure what he meant by this headline, but the point about not being able to drop tariffs on produce from one country without dropping them for all, is refuted by IEA (51mins). The IEA states [sic] “in the context of trade agreements or WTO terms [we can] lower tariffs in negotiation or unilaterally for these [food] products”. Pub guy also gives two examples in this section on lamb and cars. He explains that we export 90% lamb and lamb has a 40% export tariff so no one is going to buy it. Please see this article from 2013 about how we import and export more or less the same amount of lamb and the reasons why. In short, I highly doubt WTO terms will send welsh farmers into extinction. His second example was about cars. I found this an odd example given the number of UK cars imported from Germany. I would expect the Japanese government to seize an opportunity.
3. WTO is not a deal “It is not a foundation for trading” According to the IEA interview, a foundation for a trade agreement is exactly what it is
4. Rest of the world (outside EU and trading partners) is poor This is precisely why food can be cheaper once we leave the EU. The EU is a major agricultural exporter to the UK – being able to buy food from Africa would make it cheaper because the cost of production there is cheaper. By the way the WTO tariffs on industrial goods is very low 2%
5. We can not make better trading deals than we have through the EU This terms out to be rubbish. I visited this website and happened to select Bahrain (it was close to the top. There is no trade agreement as such but a “cooperation”. Furthermore, Bahrain is part of GCC trade agreement so the EU cannot tie it into the “no better trade terms” claimed by this logic, any county which is part of a free-trade block (eg US, Canada, Mexico etc) cannot make this agreement with the EU.
6. WTO is not democratic. This misses the point. Most membership clubs are not democratic, they have rules, but neither do they wish to legislate every part of your country in the way the EU does.
7. Everyone will sue us – I am afraid that this is pure speculation on his part and a legal opinion. He might be right, or not.
8. Going to WTO terms is illegal since we would have to secure the border with Ireland which would breach the GFA WTO have said that this is not true

I think the point you are missing about GFA is that any infrastructure, even an ANPR camera to support a smart border, contravenes GFA. And even if it doesn't, it is a target. Targets need defending. Defending needs infrastructure. Congratulations, this screws GFA.

@bellinisurge
Can you support what you say with a source so I can educate myself? I would be keen to know more about this.

The GFA says no border.

Interesting 'sleight of hand' comments being used in that 'interview'. For example talking about exiting sharply on 29 March and then talking about cheese import which the interviewee says would be under the WA terms. They jumped from one scenario to another.
I feel a considerable amount of 'lying by omission' is going on. You have to remember that Farage is betting a lot of money on all these shenanigans and I have a feeling that the IEA is another impressive sounding group that is like the ERG and may just be a bunch of financial 'manipulators'. I did not watch much but it seems that the interviewee came prepared with the answers, which would be strange since there is such a wide range of questions he could have been asked.
Oh, reconfiguring ports would take a year or so of serious building work so the 'just swap ports' is a non starter as you need acres of lorry parking space to carry out customs checks, staff and a computer system that can handle the increased documentation, ready in about a year's time.

Customs cleared vehicles have to be in an enclosed secure compound, bore building work needed.

bore should be more of course.

The "technological " solution is some kind of smart border. Which still requires some kind of infrastructure. Even a little ANPR camera is infrastructure.
ERG twats have said there is a technological solution. If it exists, it can be set up quickly. Which means we wouldn't need the backstop. Even if, for timing reasons we did need the backstop, it wouldn't be needed for long because the technological solution is so easy.
If any of this "technological solution available now " bollocks is true, the ERG would have nothing to fear from a backstop.

Sick to death of these threads we all know deep down there will not be a second referendum I don't need to explain why it's quite obvious. Absolute chaos

No deal should never be an option.

Leave was run based on us getting an agreement. We have to pay something too as we clearly have liabilities of some sort.

Ultimately, even no deal will have to be a deal in future as things pan out and are sorted. Better we know that now.

we all know deep down there will not be a second referendum I don't need to explain why it's quite obvious

Is it? Liddington, the de facto deputy PM held talks with Labour front bench on exactly this.....

If you want real experts in the WTO, follow these guys on Twitter. @CoppetainPU and @DmitryOpines They actually have real experience in and will counter leave and remain false claims.

How many leavers are on Mumsnet? It's like the guardian comments section.

I estimate 80-90% comments are in favour of remain / anti-brexit
But I don't know who is lurking

This is where remainers get their skewed ideas that millions will change their mind, I haven't and I don't know any other leaver that has.

My views aren't skewed. I think ref 2 may well bring in a Brexit vote.

So be it. If you vote for it twice, the poverty, social unrest and political decline are your inheritance.

And those that don't vote for it?

In an ideal world everyone would register their vote and the fools that vote for Brexit can bloody well pay for it.

Nothing for them to worry about if it's all project fear..

Maursh By “International Economic Affairs” I presume you’re referring to the neoliberal far right pro-Brexit cash-for-access “think tank” with “charitable” status, the Institute of Economic Affairs? Why would you think they are any kind of an authority?

I don't want a second referendum. I didn't want to leave but if that's what the majority want then so be it. Via the Withdrawal Agreement which gives us a transition period to make an attempt at proper preparation.
If we leave with no deal we are fucked.

ERG twats have said there is a technological solution.

You can bet your life they're all consulting for snake oil salesmen that use phrases like "AI" and "blockchain" ....