Why does Boris want a General Election when surely a second referendum might address the deadlock more definitively.

[Whatjusthappenedthere]

This. Because I can’t see anywhere this question has been asked or answered and I’m truly baffled.

imho, the only Referendum result that would settle things is a resounding Remain (at least 60% Remain).

Any other result settles nothing. But we won't get resounding Remain.

Narrow Remain: means Euroskeptics keep agitating and the result will struggle to be accepted.

Any amount of Leave win: means UK's red lines are still incompatible with UK legal international obligations (as well as UK's best economic interests). So solves nothing.

It is legitimate to call an election. It would set a very poor precedent to call a second referendum. And a second Leave result still wouldn’t be respected by determined Remainers - they have said as such. An election would result in quite a different parliament than the one we have now, I think.

Because he still won’t have a majority in parliament therefore can’t pass anything through. Another vote isn’t necessarily going to change anything to mean politicians will have to enforce what has been voted for. Or it least it hasn’t in the past.

What onemachine said.

Nothing will get through parliment as things stand. Only a big change at a general election can break the deadlock one way or another.

Its actually essential. Nothing can happen successfully without it now

I just wish they’d get on with it! The impasse is so destructive.

I agree that a referendum would indicate public opinion more accurately but it's just academic. Like yeoldtrout said, there's been no substantial drift either way since the referendum so no side would win convincingly and that's the problem. Unfortunately whatever horrendously bad news we throw at them, leavers are just not persuaded by it. As has been said before, brexit transends facts. It 's all about feelings, emotions and identity - that's why it's impossible to appeal to their rational side with facts and figures, predictions etc although I do wonder whether sometimes people are just reluctant to admit they've changed their minds much like those 'shy tories'

What does a second referendum resolve?

LibDems want to revoke not vote.
Labour want a new deal that they will vote remain v remain against.
Conservatives dont want another referendum.
So who decides what a referendum is on, leave v remain? what if the result is 52:48?
What if less people vote than the 1st referendum?
What if leaving the EU is not on the referendum, should leavers campaign on not voting?
What happens to the result of the first referendum? Do we just ignore democracy?

A GE is the only possibility of changing parliament so that some sort of majority can be formed.

But what, as many experts predict, it doesn't change anything? Then what? We've already had two and a half years of a government that went to the country to get a resounding majority and be able to drive their plans through, being given a spanking and being mired in internal arguments that have meant virtually every other piece of parliamentary business has been ignored. What do we do if after all the fanfare, we end up with another hung parliament that has no mandate to do anything?

I think the the general election with be decisive. If not, then the new government would have to decide how to proceed but I think a general election this year would see a huge turn out and a significant change in parliament.

The second referendum ship has long sailed in my view.

They said that about the turnout in the European elections. It didn’t happen.

Thanks for answers . I suppose I naively thought that a second referendum result would reinforce to parliament they would have to see the will of the people through regardless.
But I also see the unfairness of a second referendum in that just because the first result was not liked by parliament we go again until they get the result they want.

Second referendums are not unprecedented in recent ( European ) political history by any means.

Not unprecedented in Europe. No.

"they would have to see the will of the people through regardless."

what... regardless of what happens in Northern Ireland, regardless of how poor the quality of future imported goods might be, regardless of what happens to NHS or to UK importers & exporters or people dependent on imported medicines? I guess that's what OP means. Just shaft all those people, obligations, institutions, & shaft due process too, coz, you know, shafting is what the majority want and majority rules.

A GE is most likely going to result in a Lab/LD SNP coalition, as Cons and BXP have ruled out any electoral pact....or a hung parliament.

The price of SNP/LD co operation will be a revoke, pee ing off a lot of people.

Another referendum (must be a legally binding one, subject to correct controls) on deliverable options ie a Deal VS Remain means any Parliament is bound to implement the result.

Another referendum is unlikely as there would be no agreement on the question to be asked. To ensure fairness, the question would have to be equally balanced for both leave and remain.

This is the difficulty lies. Remain has only one version. Nothing changes. Leave has numerous versions, including no deal.

There would not be agreement on the number of leave versions to offer. Even if there was, how would they be counted? Could end with a remain result of less than 50%, which would lead to the same argument as now.

Another referendum (must be a legally binding one, subject to correct controls) on deliverable options ie a Deal VS Remain means any Parliament is bound to implement the result.

I think that would cause major protests. What could be done is Remain vs Leave with a second sub-question for leave of deal vs no deal.

The deal vs no deal question is only counted if leave is a majority.

Because he thinks he will win an election (and will say that gives him a mandate for no deal) but he won't win a referendum.

The annoying thing is that revoking Article 50 doesn't mean we don't leave, it just stops the clock ticking.

My ideal scenario at the moment would be revoke Art 50.

Legally binding Referendum in about 3 -6 months with a sensible campaign with remain actually putting out a "manifesto for Europe" showing what it does rather than the pathetic lack of information last time.

Legally binding so that any breaches of electoral law are able to be prosecuted. Ideally single transferrable vote between "No deal", "A withdrawal agreement as agreed by TM's government" and "Remaim"

Implement result of legally binding referendum.

Not entirely sure where a general election should sit - because before any referendum it would be very much a single issue vote and other important issues (NHS, Education) will be largely irrelevant, but we don't have an effective government at the moment so could do with one...

Agree about revocation of Art 50 best way fwd. It DOESN'T mean we never leave, but it gives 1. security and stability in economics and social spheres and 2. opportunity for Parliament and parties to get their feet sorted out. IF we do a 2nd ref. fine, or a GE, fine. But to do either we need more breathing space, collecively.

Tusk asked in April 'don't waste this time'. So what did we do??

Ideally single transferrable vote between "No deal", "A withdrawal agreement as agreed by TM's government" and "Remaim"

I think that would be seen as unfair as I suspect many in the UK won't be familiar with STV and it will be seen as splitting the leave vote.

I think that would be seen as unfair as I suspect many in the UK won't be familiar with STV and it will be seen as splitting the leave vote

I agree.

Yeoldtrout. No that’s not what I meant. You are projecting your views onto mine.

These answers are really informative. I haven’t applied much grey matter to politics since my late teens other than radio 4 each morning.
Thanks.

I think that would be seen as unfair as I suspect many in the UK won't be familiar with STV and it will be seen as splitting the leave vote.

Only if people go round falsely claiming "It's splitting the Leave vote."

Unless you're suggesting British voters are stupid – indeed more stupid than countries which habitually use STV – why do you think we're incapable of getting to grips with STV, if it's well explained over a decent period beforehand?

Of course, if someone were to start a disinformation campaign to mislead and confuse voters... Then yes, voters might not grasp STV.

Would anyone do that?

(Apologies, that sounded like I was getting at the posters who said/quoted that. I actually mean it as a general question.)