If there were another Referendum on Brexit...

[lljkk]

What question(s) would you like to be asked, in hope of getting result you want?

I think mine is something like:
Part 1:
Leave
Remain

Part 2
If the majority choose Leave, would you prefer:

Leave ASAP regardless of withdrawal arrangements

Only leave with a smooth withdrawal arrangement including transition period in place

1:
-No deal
Or
-May’s deal after an extension of article 50

Remain

I can’t even consider your part 2 choices.

Just remain.
And apologise for the massive cock up and waste of EU time and money. In fact, we should grovel on our knees, then invite the EU round for cake and some lemonade -then never speak of it again.

Oh sorry, I would like the following on the ballot:

Part one:
Remain and invite EU for scones and jam.
Or
Remain and invite EU for Victoria sponge.

Part 2:
Remain and serve old fashioned lemonade.
Or
Remain and serve raspberry lemonade.

I'd simply like the nation to have a more informed re-run of the original referendum. No campaigning bollocks, just now we know more, do we still want it?

This is the type of referendum that I think should happen - it removes the argument of splitting the leave vote and provides the ability for both leave and remain to inform their view of what brexit should be if leave is the decision.

I also think it needs the requirement of a leading majority to make it legally binding.

No deal shouldn’t be an option.

So, a form of indicative votes, something like, in order of preference write 1-4 for:

Remain
Norway
Mays deal
Something in between

I don’t think the electorate should be asked again - a tiny percentage actually understand politics, economics etc well enough to sensibly vote. I do think on the basis of that though that the first referendum should be scrapped since as someone on another thread said, it’s as legally binding as an X factor vote and no one knew what they were actually voting for. Will of the people my arse.

I agree with your ballot question op.

I remember a Leaver on here a while ago saying you couldn't have a question like that though as it too complicated and people wouldn't understand. Same person claimed Leave voters knew exactly what they voted for and understood all the complexities of Brexit and EU membership.

Whatever the question would be on a second referendum it has to be equally balanced between leave and remain. So for me the question should be same as before.

Too many different ways to leave so trying to include them all on a ballot paper is pointless.

I don’t think the electorate should be asked again - a tiny percentage actually understand politics, economics etc well enough to sensibly vote

Well there is democracy in action.

it’s as legally binding as an X factor vote and no one knew what they were actually voting for

Could the same not be said of the 1975 referendum when UK joined the EU?

WA vs Remain. I'd support Remain.
WA vs No Deal. I'd support WA.

Choosing potential referendum questions is actually a really interesting and challenging task.

First off, one has to decide on whether it's going to be a binary vote or one with multiple options (i.e Remain v No Deal v PM's Deal).

Multiple options of course runs the risk of being seen as illegitimate, as it's likely to split the vote and swing things in favour of remaining. But is a binary option any better? Remain v No Deal seems, on the face of it, unacceptable - after all, the HoC has already voted to rule out a no deal exit (Not to mention that a portion of potential voters have been shown to not know what no deal actually is, so giving an informed vote would be a challenge). But Remain v PM's Deal is just as troublesome. After all, that's been shot down twice by Parliament. How could we ask the public to vote for a deal that the HoC won't support?

Remain vs Leave, without specifying what sort of leaving? That might solve some of the problems above, but without defining the sort of leave involved it doesn't move us much past where we are at present.

If pushed, I'd say some form of preferential voting system, to avoid accusations of splitting the leave base. And then a contest between Remain, an extension to work out a new deal, leaving with a customs union type deal, or leaving with May's deal.

Re-run of the first referendum for me. Same 'advisory' status too as it has to be an apples v apples comparison.

Adding or taking things away just complicates things.

We never had a referendum on joining the EEC. The referendum in 1975 was to decide if we should stay in having been admitted to membership in 1973.

The process of joining was started by Macmillan back in 1961 when his government lodged the application to be admitted. Then de Gaulle blocked us for years.

"All those who want a referendum want a rigged random" said Peter Lilley on WorldService just now. (paraphrase) 'They want to take Leave off the Table.'

May I just cite my OP to show that's not true? :)

I've thought about it a lot. We have to give a fair option to leave or remain and figure out how as well, so I could only think of a two part ref. Part A, Leave v Remain (yes, a rerun of the first) then 2 weeks later IF Part A shows a new win for Leave: Leave with No Deal or Leave with May's Deal. I'm pretty sure the latter would win by a considerable margin and she would have got the sign off from voters.
It's risky for both remainers and leavers, which is why I think it's pretty fair.

We should absolutely NOT give the public the choice of no deal. A significant proportion of polled people thought that no deal = no Brexit so they simply can't be trusted with that decision.

noword
I realise that's a risk and a flaw in my plan but I don't think we can refuse to table an option because we assume the worst. There would really have to be a proper Remain campaign to highlight the difference between no deal and remain. If we dont do it that way, i just think this whole debate will fester for decades. Rip up the band aid and treat what's underneath (hoping it's not gone sceptic).

Which is why it's simply leave or remain. A pure and simple re-run.

I did wonder as a tongue-in-cheek...curved ball etc approach if we should have:

1. Retain current trade arrangements.
2. Leave our existing arrangements to wherever May's WA takes us.
3. Don't care- I'll choose my MP then let MPs decide trade matters.

The point of 3 being it would dilute party first politics ...and stop the gov being obsessed by will of the people arguments.

You can’t have an option that would unlawfully violate the GFA. You can’t have options that the EU27 haven’t agreed to.

It would have to be Remain v latest deal agreed with EU27.

A pure and simple re-run.
But that's not enough; we'd have to know how. Which is why if you don't like my two round plan, the alternative could only be to go straight to Remain v May's deal but is that likely to be approved as a question?

I'm leaning towards thinking that the public shouldn't have the decision at all. The long term economic consequences of each option are too complex and ultimately even experts can't agree how the future would unfold with each option.

The majority voted leave, but that shouldn't mean we leave at any cost. Our government is responsible for making decisions in our collective best interest- whilst they appear to have made a shambles of the whole thing, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If carrying out the 'will of the people' represents economic suicide then a decision needs to be made by people qualified to have a reasonable grasp of the potential risks/benefits.

Fine, remain vs WA, but you can't give no deal as an option.

Which is why all their pissing about is so frustrating, witty. The MPs' collective failure to protect the public from economic ruin is appalling.