What referendum question?

[RandomlyChosenName]

With around half the country wanting a second referendum on Brexit, what question should be asked that is a fair question?

What happens if leave wins again (which is a possibility as the other half of the country supports it)?

Bearing in mind these difficulties with a referendum- and I don’t buy that “campaign better” will work now people are so entrenched- why is this the focus of all the Remain parities? Why isn’t anyone saying “Brexit is undeliverable, so we we would revoke Article 50”?

Yes, for me WA was an acceptable agreement, there are bits of it I don't like much, but I'd far rather have one than not.

I'm afraid I expect them to stand by their statements when they have committed to implement the result of a national referendum and have proceeded to spend most of the past 3 years not doing so.

This is the problem with a second referendum though as far as I can see it. It is as unclear as Brexit about how/if it would work. I can't understand why LD, Greens and possibly Labour are touting it as a policy without defining it. Neither leave nor referendum is a clear "this is what will happen position".

I was thinking that the 3 way split with second preference would work best, but all 3 options would have to be clear and workable in case they win. It CAN'T be assumed revoke would get more than 50%.

If there is a second referendum, it must have several options and for people to declare a preference.

1. Leave with no deal
2. Leave but stay in Customs Union
3. Norway model
4. Revoke Article 50
5. May Deal Etc

It needs to be clear that this is the final vote and is there needs to be a x% margin for the winning solution etc

I realise that we could end up with a solution that less than 50% votes for (as the other 50%+ is scattered across the other choices) but we can't continue in this polarized stay/Leave situation and need to compromise.

Naive Louise, we operate within a representative parliamentary democracy, MPs will vote as they see fit.

Very strange that a so called democratic like J.Hunt doesn't even want a GE because he is frightened Labour would get in on a 2nd Referendum ticket and we (the tories) won't get brexit!!! so, like May he is now admitting the country no longer wants to leave the EU.

FFS, this is nothing short of dictatorship, from both sides, now we've leading Con and Lab figures expelled for voting with their conscience.

Terrible times.

But pika- anything that deliberately splits the leave vote would never be allowed as it isn't fair. If you have revoke and then more than one leave option, it would never be allowed to happen as it would be considered a deliberate attempt to rig the vote.

Tbh I can't understand why leave supporters in parliament (conservative, labour, DUP etc) didn't just vote for the WA.

It appears to me that everyone cares very little about Brexit/not Brexit and more about themselves. Conservatives just all want to be the leader, Labour just wants a GE, DUP only cares about the Union, SNP just care about independence etc. It's so frustrating. And LD and Greens keep going on about some vague unworkable "people's vote"...

It wouldn’t matter that the leave vote was split in the early stages. If more than one single option reaches the threshold in stage one they would win, if not the least popular option would be removed and the next choice allocated. This would continue until one option reached the threshold.

The final stage might be revoke v the most popular leave option but could also be (defined) “Norway” v (defined) “managed no deal”.

Only if you do preferences Silk. Pika was saying that option with highest votes wins.

With around half the country wanting a second referendum on Brexit, what question should be asked that is a fair question?
What you really mean is that around half the country want to ignore the first referendum.

Another 'Leave or stay' vote? but what if the result is 48:52 you would have to have a tie breaker third referendum. What would that do to the country?

A referendum with multiple options? Its an easy way to bias the result. And the future of our country might be something that hardly anyone actually wants. A bit like Mays deal. What would that do to the country?

How about we do the only sensible thing and go with what 52% of the electorate voted for. Maybe we could agree to have another referendum in 10 years time on rejoining the EU if it doesn't go well.

1. Leave, no deal.
2. Remain

Anything other than leaving with no deal is not in our gift anyway.

I'm a Remainer but there are Leave options that I would accept (basically anything but No Deal)

What should have happened after the Leave victory imo is for the electorate to be asked which version of Leave do we want. While many Leavers want No Deal, some may vote for the other options. I specifically remember Cameron mentioning Norway, Canada etc as a possible Leave solution and Remainers would be split on which option is the least worst.

Another 'Leave or stay' vote? but what if the result is 48:52 you would have to have a tie breaker third referendum. What would that do to the country

I seriously doubt anyone would allow (propose?) another Leave ? Remain referendum where it isn’t clearly stipulated how the country would leave.

How about we do the only sensible thing and go with what 52% of the electorate voted for

Because no one knows what the country voted for (yes they voted Leave but no one knows what kind of Leave the country voted for).

yes they voted Leave but no one knows what kind of Leave the country voted for That's what remainers keep saying, but leavers seem to be pretty confident and vocal about what kind of leave they voted for.

But ok, that creates an easy solution, lets just ask leavers to vote on what they meant. A real Brexit or Mays deal. Problem solved. Pretty sure the recent elections show very few want the Tory or Labour soft Brexit, so no deal it is then.

Well No Deal v Remain would solve that then. No Deal should romp home and politicians can blame the public for the shit that follows.

Pretty sure the recent elections show very few want the Tory or Labour soft Brexit, so no deal it is then

35% of European election voters voted for hard Brexit parties (40% voted for Remain parties). That’s not even close to giving you a mandate for a no deal Brexit.

I'm not against a second referendum entirely, although it does beg the question 'where does it end?'. Here is where I would start to wrangle a united UK agreement. Because thankfully Parliament is in Recess and we are free to make our own imaginary Mumsnet Parliament.

The Irish backstop - NI voted Remain in the Ref and returned a very good balance in their 3 MEPs (thumbs up to the Alliance voters) which also gave a majority Remain vote.

I checked out the SF Brexit proposals for the RoI/NI Border and I definately agree with their proposal and case for creating an EU exception in regards to NI.

I do understand that SF's motivations for this proposal are linked to their Unified Ireland stance - but I also really think that an EU Exception should be made.

Parallel to this, all efforts must be made to re-instate Stormont ASAP.

Following from this would be the Scotland Question - well, of course they should have another Referendum or Two if they want them.

One could ask if Scotland wanted to be an EU Exception too.

One could ask about Independence in a post-Brexit UK.

Then rinse and repeat for Wales too.

But seriously folks, I think SF have a good idea there.

Anything other than leaving with no deal is not in our gift anyway.

Of course there is something else in parliament's gift ... signing up to the W.A which the govt negotiated with the EU and which the EU want us to sign. Of course ... that would only be the beginning of ten years trade talks, but we already have a way to leave without no deal.

But ok, that creates an easy solution, lets just ask leavers to vote on what they meant. A real Brexit or Mays deal. Problem solved.

How exactly are you defining a 'real' brexit? What are the parameters? Does it involve negotiating a new deal or is 'real' brexit turning our back on European trade forever more? Who else will we trade with? do we get referendums on those deals? If we do want an eventual EU deal ... Who gets to decide what we want the the new deal to look like? what do we do when the EU says 'no'?

And in this referendum (?) to find out what leave looks like, are only leavers allowed to vote? (Because if this stage 1 of a ref to put defined leave against remain pesky remainers might infiltrate to choose the deal) How will you stop remainers from voting as the votes three years ago were anonymous? How can you justify disenfranchising half the electorate for a vote? ... but if the remainers do vote, you still don't find out what leavers wanted.

There is nothing simple about this suggestion. Pretending that it is simple, when it is not, is how we ended up in the mess we are in. It is time to stop pretending there are any simple solutions to leave. The only simple solution is revoke - anything else is massively complicated., That doesn't mean we shouldn't do something massively complicated - but not acknowledging the complexity is dangerous and dishonest.

(40% voted for Remain parties)
So that would mean 60% voted to leave.

Why would anyone want no deal?

So that would mean 60% voted to leave

Trouble is no one knows what the hell people voted for unless it was hard Brexit or Remain. Maybe you can argue conservative voters were voting for the WA? Who knows?

Labour supporters tend to be more Remain leaning (14.1% + 40.4% = 54.5%). Corbyn has a very soft Brexit stance that no one even members of his own cabinet really understand —good lord how I loath Corbyn—

We need to ask the question again. But be clear what Leave actually means. Truth is I’ve no idea what would happen if No Deal when up against Remain in a referendum, and neither do you. The people could well choose to leave again, in which case I’ll suck it up.

Brexit party voters weren't necessarily voting for a hard Brexit either. Just A Brexit.

So we should have a second referendum because half? the country want it. Why should opinions of half, or less of the people wanting a second referendum trump the 52% of people who want Brexit?
Should the 1st result not be implemented before asking for a 2nd?

Should the 1st result not be implemented before asking for a 2nd

But no one knows what implementing Brexit looks like. We’ve had two leavers on this thread supporting different things.

Louise would support the Withdrawal Agreement. Walkingdead supports a “real Brexit” (I’m assuming this means no deal but I’m not quite sure).

Therewillbe, my point is, when we start to muddy the waters by saying people see Brexit as meaning different things this sets a very dangerous precedent for other votes in the future. When we use the reason of confusion to justify overturning a vote we diminish the value of democracy.

my point is, when we start to muddy the waters by saying people see Brexit as meaning different things this sets a very dangerous precedent for other votes in the future

Regarding future votes. I very much hope this referendum will put an end to vague and poorly thought out options being put to a binary vote.

Regarding “muddying the waters” as to what Brexit means. I’m not making this up just to be difficult. On this very thread we have had leavers who have a very different idea of what Brexit means.

No one is muddying the waters. They are pointing at a large body of exceptionally muddy water - and pointing out that it is muddy.

they are also pointing out that the body of water is surrounded by danger signs (fast flowing water, man eating crocodiles, angry hippos etc) and pointing out that we could just stay on the bank instead of diving head first into the murky depths

I’m not really in favour of a 2nd ref. We had one and the consequences have been horrible.
If we do have another, I think the options should still be Leave / Remain. I don’t think the public generally has the political or economic understanding to decide whether any particular deal or ‘no deal’ is the better option. We elect people who should have the acumen to make those decisions. The fact that the latter feels a bit questionable at the moment doesn’t mean we should rely on the largely emotionally-driven choices of the British electorate as a basis for our country’s future.