If the EU referendum result had been .........

[waltzingparrot]

stronger, I.e 60% leave, 40% remain

Do you think we would be in a different situation now?

The EU wouldn't have given us a better deal would they?
Parliament would still have 75% remain MPs

No because the difficulty of extracting ourselves from almost 50 years of trade and law partnerships would have still been the same as would the good Friday agreement. 99% could have voted leave, the result 3 years down the road would have been the same total shit show.

Possibly slightly different but I don't think so. May had the opportunity to make us face up to the difficulties from the start and to set up a cross party standing committee to tackle the issues and commission negotiators. She could have taken a 'this is a huge challenge and we must involve everyone to have a chance of it going as well as it can' approach from the start. She could have asked Nigel Farage to work on a two year study of options for the fishing industry, forcing him to do some bloody work or look like the chancer he is. When the election went tits up she could have NOT put herself in hock to the DUP though to be fair there weren't many options at that point. She could have tried a couple of others though.

But at bottom, the referendum was a PR phone voting exercise that was meant to not happen like this.

The mandate might have been stronger. What might be holding back MPs is knowing that the country for all the talk of 'overwhelming' votes for Brexit is really split 50:50. (Except for NI, Scotland and Gibraltar which did clearly vote for Remain.)

Why do you think the public voted in so many Remain supporting MPs? The current Parliament is not a hang over from before the Referendum, so people can't say they didn't know what their MP's stance was.

No problem was binary question, no plan. And politicians moving from slow withdrawal Norway style deal to no deal.

The mandate would have been a bit stronger but fundamentally the situation wouldn't have been different, in that most leave voters voted for a version of Brexit which is not on offer and was never going to be on offer.

One of the problems is that we don't know what version of Brexit the majority of Leavers wanted. If it was more money for the NHS that could be sorted now. If it was to kick out Muslims, whether immigrants or not, that wasn't and will never be part of Leaving the EU.

That's true Peregrina, but what we do know is that all the types of Brexit that were promoted by the Leave campaign do not exist in the real world.

Many people were saying in April-May 2016 "I don't know what we're being asked to vote for or what Brexit means" & "I don't want to leave the EU but I want to vote leave to give the establishment a kicking" .

A stronger Leave result would resolve my fears that those voters had swayed the vote. For me 60L:40R would be different.

99% Leave would mean we'd have crashed out properly 1-3 years ago, no? There wouldn't be any MPs from Remain constituencies or MPs saying "48% is a LARGE minority to just ignore" There would be very little division. We'd be still be in economic shit but lots of people could justifiably say it was shit almost everyone wanted to endure.

You would still have the question of what sort of Leave - a soft Brexit, Norway + or a hard Brexit, Singapore on Thames.

Why do you think the public voted in so many Remain supporting MPs? The current Parliament is not a hang over from before the Referendum, so people can't say they didn't know what their MP's stance was.

Both Labour and the Conservatives fought the 2017 election on a manifesto undertaking to proceed with Brexit. Presumably voters thought they were voting for MPs who would follow the policies they campaigned on.

Both Labour and the Conservatives fought the 2017 election on a manifesto undertaking to proceed with Brexit.

Neither won a majority though, and Labour in particular has no obligation to deliver a manifesto on which it lost an election.

DH, who is a now a Lexiter, firmly believes that Labour is a Remain party.

Everything would be different, no possibility of a PV or Revoke, prob no 2017 GE, the mandate would be very clear.... we leave.

A WA would be voted through and we'd be in a transition period and heading toward a FTA or a closer economic model as the Govt wouldn't had to suck up to the ERG DUP loonies.

The country would not have been so divided, especially if the percentage for Leave was something like 75%, which would presumably be reflected in Parliament. The debate would then centre on How we left, which might have thrown up the same problems which May found.

There wouldn't have been demonstrations and petitions against Leaving. It's also interesting to speculate - would there have been room for Farage to come back to the political scene?

Parliament would still have 75% remain MPs

Parliament has 75% remain MPs?

twofingers 480 out of 650 MPs declared they'd voted remain. I make that 75%. What do you make it?

The fundamental problems have been that the basic elements of leaving are mutually exclusive, combined with a fair amount of 'lying' suggesting that leaving can be all things (beneficial) to everybody.
The Northern Ireland border is perhaps the trickiest, as there has to be a 'border' where goods are checked (WTO calls for control of goods between territories).
If the electorate had been told from the outset that leaving will incur a (say) 10% increase in the cost of everything, for around 10 years (while new trade deals are struck) do you want that, then it would have been more realistic. The model of things being wonderful on 'basic' WTO terms (no deals) is not what will happen.
Lastly, the 'spin' that is being put on the various polls does not accurately reflect the questions. The EU MEP vote was not about whether the Lab/Tory/Libdem should be MPs in the UK, but they are/were to represent the UK in Brussels. Quite a significant role as it is mixing EU 'politics' with UK domestic politics which for things like fisheries Lab/Tory/Libdem may well have a common approach.

The complexities of disantangling ourselves would've been the same but if leave had got a bigger majority, they would've had a bigger mandate, parliament wouldn't have been as deadlocked, remainers maybe would've accepted it more and not be campaigning for PV and leavers wouldn't be blaming remainers and remainer MPs of thrawting the process and 'trying to overturn the will of the people' as they say a lot right now.

The UK was on the best 'deal' with the EU. In theory the UK still is, except it has wasted billions making departure preparations and has largely suspended 'normal' activities.

480 out of 650 MPs declared they'd voted remain. I make that 75%. What do you make it?
Firstly, we only have their word for that. Secondly, You will know that after the referendum many of these 'remain MPs' (Theresa May is a case in point) declared themselves willing to follow the 'will of the people', ie. they ceased being 'remain MPs' if they ever were. You will be aware, too, that MPs will do whatever is expedient for their careers and will bend in the wind if they think it will gain them popularity or help party cohesion. Theresa May's 'red lines' were not the work of a 'remain MP' and if you listen to/watch the news, you'll know that many of those MPs who voted remain back in 2016, now declare themselves leavers. Hunt did it a day or two ago.

Your assertion that there are 75% remain MPs now (as opposed to MPs who say they voted remain three years ago) is therefore questionable.

You will know that after the referendum many of these 'remain MPs' (Theresa May is a case in point) declared themselves willing to follow the 'will of the people', ie. they ceased being 'remain MPs' if they ever were.

Very much the case with the ex MP for Oxford West and Abingdon. She followed May and happily sung from the Leaver hymn sheet, until May called her snap election. Ms Blackwood then woke up and realised that she was still in a strongly Remain constituency, and started bleating how she had voted Remain, but it was too late.

Besides which we are constantly told that 80% of the population voted for parties which support Leave, so presumably those MPs support the party line.

The premise of the People's Vote is that people are allowed to change their minds. That include people who voted Remain in 2016.

Many of those who campaigned for Remain in 2016 voted to keep Crashing out On an Exit option. Leaving Crashing out as an option is not a true blue Believer Remainer strategy, is it? Pretending that everything political is forever stuck in June 2016 is daft.

Cameron shouldn't have called the referendum without a proper plan. People are understandably upset they voted for something that hasn't been implemented yet but many of them without the foresight to predict this, just thought that if they voted for it, it would happen. They were naive enough to think the gov had it in hand. Most people didn't even consider NI. Some people even thought we'd be 'out' the next day. So these people are just doubling down and getting more and more angry and frustrated and they are being fuelled by Farage and co to think it's a 'betrayal' and just confirms their belief that the establishment don't want it. I thought maybe, when it all started going wrong, that leavers would realise what a terrible idea it was and change their mind, but things have just got more entrenched and divided. I know some have changed their minds, but in general, they haven't.

I do think aswell, for such a massive change, a bigger majority should've been required. At least 60/40. I don't think referendums are a good idea for our democracy and the way our parliament is set up. I read somewhere that referendums are the tool of demigouges and dictators and I can see why now. When it all goes to shit, BJ can absolve himself by saying 'it was the will of the people, democracy etc etc'.

I have a friend who voted Remain. She now thinks she would vote Leave to 'get it over with'. It won't be 'got over with', that will just be the start. She worked in Scientific research (just retired) and I am minded to tell her that her old department will close, most staff were EU staff and that research won't now be done in the UK. Is that the sort of get it over that she wants?