Could there have been a third EU referendum?

[monkey]

Owner of business that is 90% exports regrets voting for Brexit

She admits to having voted ‘leave’ because she was sick of employment and health and safety rules originating from Brussels.

“Following a challenging 2020 during the first wave of Covid-19 we were excitedly looking forward to expanding our business in 2021 putting our entrepreneurial ideas into practice.

Translation: "I just wanted to be able to treat my staff worse, and now I'm f.cked, boo-hoo".

I really can't understand how businesses that trade with the continent seriously thought that things would stay the same after Brexit. The whole point was to separate us and let us set our own rules. They really did seem to think we could leave the club but keep using the clubhouse.

It's not that surprising, that's exactly what they were told during the referendum campaign by the leavers. They should've smelled the utopian unicorn farts and realised what they were, but it's not their fault they were lied to.

[Sciolus]

It's not that surprising, that's exactly what they were told during the referendum campaign by the leavers. They should've smelled the utopian unicorn farts and realised what they were, but it's not their fault they were lied to.

This. Before the referendum, all the talk was of a soft Brexit, with hard Brexit being a fringe position with little mainstream support. It was May's unilateral decision, adopted by Johnson, that the vote meant we should leave the SM and CU.

[Martin Y]

It's not that surprising, that's exactly what they were told during the referendum campaign by the leavers. They should've smelled the utopian unicorn farts and realised what they were, but it's not their fault they were lied to.

This. Before the referendum, all the talk was of a soft Brexit, with hard Brexit being a fringe position with little mainstream support. It was May's unilateral decision, adopted by Johnson, that the vote meant we should leave the SM and CU.

It is amazing to me, genuinely astounding, how quickly we went from reassuring b.llsh.t about soft Brexit to a state where a significant number clamoured that "everyone knew" we had voted for No Deal, which would be just fine, and they wanted it now! It's hard not to Godwin one's analogies when looking for an example of another nation going collectively f.cking mad like that.

[Millennie Al]

As Theresa May so astutely remarked "Brexit is Brexit". i.e. if you voted for something with was merely an immensely broad category, you now have no grounds to complain that what you got from that category wasn't what you had hoped.

[Martin_B]

As Theresa May so astutely remarked "Brexit is Brexit". i.e. if you voted for something with was merely an immensely broad category, you now have no grounds to complain that what you got from that category wasn't what you had hoped.

But I refer you to an analogy which was going around about a year after the referendum vote (I've no idea who came up with it - lost in the mists of time; if it was someone on here then I apologise for nicking it):

You ask 100 people what would they like for dinner, with two options: curry and not-curry. 48 people say curry and 52 people say not-curry. When you ask what the not-curry voters want, you get a wide response of answers: burgers, pizza, French, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, fish and chips, beans on toast, steak and kidney pudding, Thai (which is essentially curry under a different name, but people got confused because they thought curry meant only Chicken Tikka Marsala), and kebabs. If you try and point out that the option the greatest number of people actually want is 'curry', then the not-curry voters loudly shout that 'curry' lost and get over it. If you try and find an option which will suit everyone you can get no agreement, and the restaurants are all shutting and the only places now open are the kebab houses, which only 2 of the people actually wanted, but by causing disagreement and preventing consensus they've got their way and all 100 people now have to have kebabs.

[snoozeofreason]

As Theresa May so astutely remarked "Brexit is Brexit". i.e. if you voted for something with was merely an immensely broad category, you now have no grounds to complain that what you got from that category wasn't what you had hoped.

But I refer you to an analogy which was going around about a year after the referendum vote (I've no idea who came up with it - lost in the mists of time; if it was someone on here then I apologise for nicking it):

You ask 100 people what would they like for dinner, with two options: curry and not-curry. 48 people say curry and 52 people say not-curry. When you ask what the not-curry voters want, you get a wide response of answers: burgers, pizza, French, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, fish and chips, beans on toast, steak and kidney pudding, Thai (which is essentially curry under a different name, but people got confused because they thought curry meant only Chicken Tikka Marsala), and kebabs. If you try and point out that the option the greatest number of people actually want is 'curry', then the not-curry voters loudly shout that 'curry' lost and get over it. If you try and find an option which will suit everyone you can get no agreement, and the restaurants are all shutting and the only places now open are the kebab houses, which only 2 of the people actually wanted, but by causing disagreement and preventing consensus they've got their way and all 100 people now have to have kebabs.

Most referendums are going to address some sort of curry/not-curry issue, with curry standing for the status quo, and not-curry standing for some change to it. The advantage that the curry eaters - the supporters of the status quo - have is the multiplicity of ways in which the status quo can be changed. The way they can leverage it is to force the the other side to commit to as much detail as possible as early as possible. That card got well played in the 2011 AV referendum where supporters of electoral reform were forced, before the question was even put to the electorate, to agree to a referendum that pitted FPTP against a system for which many of them had little enthusiasm. It was played well in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, where the currency to be used by an independent Scotland turned out to be an effective wedge issue. But it's a card that has to be played early - ideally before the referendum question is decided on, and certainly before it is voted on. For one reason or another, the Brexiteers managed to fudge the issue in 2016 and the result, as you say, is kebabs all round.

[sTeamTraen]

Most referendums are going to address some sort of curry/not-curry issue

Not if they are properly designed. Proper referendums are "We have negotiated this treaty. Do you approve or not?"; the last step, not the first. So it's "Do you want curry? If not, you're going to be waiting a long time for your dinner".

[snoozeofreason]

Most referendums are going to address some sort of curry/not-curry issue

Not if they are properly designed. Proper referendums are "We have negotiated this treaty. Do you approve or not?"; the last step, not the first. So it's "Do you want curry? If not, you're going to be waiting a long time for your dinner".

It would not have been possible to have such a referendum before deciding to leave. The EU were clear that they would not start negotiating the terms of our exit from the EU until after we had made the decision to do so. A similar observation applies to Scottish Independence referendums, past and future. Any decision that Scotland would leave would lead to very complex negotiations regarding withdrawal and future relations. There would be very little possibility of holding those negotiations before Scotland voted.

[dyqik]

The government could have sent A50 notification a year to 18 months before the referendum, then started negotiations and held the referendum after they'd progressed a bit.

Or they could have scheduled a second binding referendum before the A50 notice period expired.

Both would have required the UK to start negotiations with a plan and intent to make progress on good time.

[snoozeofreason]

The government could have sent A50 notification a year to 18 months before the referendum, then started negotiations and held the referendum after they'd progressed a bit.

Or they could have scheduled a second binding referendum before the A50 notice period expired.

Both would have required the UK to start negotiations with a plan and intent to make progress on good time.

Giving A50 notice before the referendum would have meant telling the EU that we were intending to leave before we had voted to leave, and at a time when most people thought that we would not vote to leave. It's unlikely that the EU would have wanted to enter into negotiations for a withdrawal agreement just on the off chance that one of its members might vote to leave on the basis of that agreement. (In fact I suspect that they would have been very strongly opposed to such an idea, because it might lead to other countries having a go to see what sort of offer they could get.)

Even if the EU had been willing to play along with such a hypothetical exercise, it would have aggrieved both remainers and leavers. Leavers would not have any confidence that the negotiations had been carried out in good faith because they would have been conducted between the Cameron government, who didn't want us to leave, and the EU, who didn't want us to leave either, so they would have suspected that any resulting agreement had been designed to be rejected. And remainers would be unhappy that negotiations to leave had started with no indication that we wanted to leave.

[dyqik]

Oh, it wouldn't have been an easy option, but it would have been legal and allowed a binding referendum on a specific deal, with all options open.

[snoozeofreason]

Oh, it wouldn't have been an easy option, but it would have been legal and allowed a binding referendum on a specific deal, with all options open.

It would have been an impossible option. The first sentence of Article 50 reads "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements," before going on to outline the process by which a withdrawal agreement would be reached following such a decision. The EU would never have have negotiated a withdrawal agreement with a country that was just thinking that it might decide to withdraw.

[dyqik]

Oh, it wouldn't have been an easy option, but it would have been legal and allowed a binding referendum on a specific deal, with all options open.

It would have been an impossible option. The first sentence of Article 50 reads "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements," before going on to outline the process by which a withdrawal agreement would be reached following such a decision. The EU would never have have negotiated a withdrawal agreement with a country that was just thinking that it might decide to withdraw.

None of that prevents what I said.

[monkey]

Oh, it wouldn't have been an easy option, but it would have been legal and allowed a binding referendum on a specific deal, with all options open.

It would have been an impossible option. The first sentence of Article 50 reads "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements," before going on to outline the process by which a withdrawal agreement would be reached following such a decision. The EU would never have have negotiated a withdrawal agreement with a country that was just thinking that it might decide to withdraw.

I don't remember any objections to a 2nd referendum from the EU, or the possibility of one affecting the negotiations, which would have been a similar situation.

[snoozeofreason]

Oh, it wouldn't have been an easy option, but it would have been legal and allowed a binding referendum on a specific deal, with all options open.

It would have been an impossible option. The first sentence of Article 50 reads "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements," before going on to outline the process by which a withdrawal agreement would be reached following such a decision. The EU would never have have negotiated a withdrawal agreement with a country that was just thinking that it might decide to withdraw.

None of that prevents what I said.

Well, if what you were saying was that there could have been a binding referendum on a specific deal negotiated before declaring article 50, then yes it does prevent what you said. In order to have such a referendum there would have to have be such a specific deal on which we could have a referendum, and there wouldn't be one because the EU would not have negotiated a deal until after we had declared A50 (and FWIW any referendum on such a deal would not have been binding in the sense that you or I would interpret the term, because the extent to which referendums can be binding is limited by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty).

[dyqik]

It would have been an impossible option. The first sentence of Article 50 reads "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements," before going on to outline the process by which a withdrawal agreement would be reached following such a decision. The EU would never have have negotiated a withdrawal agreement with a country that was just thinking that it might decide to withdraw.

None of that prevents what I said.

Well, if what you were saying was that there could have been a binding referendum on a specific deal negotiated before declaring article 50, then yes it does prevent what you said.

I very clearly didn't say that. Goodbye until you can be bothered to read what I wrote and you quoted.

[snoozeofreason]

None of that prevents what I said.

Well, if what you were saying was that there could have been a binding referendum on a specific deal negotiated before declaring article 50, then yes it does prevent what you said.

I very clearly didn't say that. Goodbye until you can be bothered to read what I wrote and you quoted.

Sorry, you advanced two ideas in your original post and I might have conflated them a bit. The first was

The government could have sent A50 notification a year to 18 months before the referendum, then started negotiations and held the referendum after they'd progressed a bit .

The problem with that is, as I said, that the EU would not have entered into negotiations on that basis.

The second was

Or they could have scheduled a second binding referendum before the A50 notice period expired.

I am not quite sure what you mean by that. I think - and please correct me if I am wrong - that you were suggesting that we could have had a first referendum in which the options were (a) to remain or (b) to negotiate a deal on the understanding that we would then hold a second referendum on it (I am not sure whether the deal in question would have been the withdrawal agreement or the subsequent agreement on a future relationship). Obviously we didn't conduct the first referendum on that basis, but otherwise it's a slightly more workable idea. I am not sure what the options in that second referendum would be though. If the only options would have been to accept the deal or remain in the EU, then there would still have been the problem that I mentioned earlier. Any such second referendum would have been based on some kind of leave deal negotiated between a UK government which didn't, at that time, want us to leave (the Cameron government, I mean, because there was no suggestion that he would resign after the first referendum), and the EU, which didn't want us to leave either. That would have been problematic for all sorts of reasons. If the options were to accept the deal or negotiate a different deal then that might have solved some problems, but it would have given rise to others.

[Millennie Al]

Indeed. I always took the "Brexit means Brexit" to be aimed at the leave voters. The Remainers knew they weren't getting what they wanted, it's the stupid Brexiteers who voted for something without realising that it was such a broad category that there was very little chance that their preference would be the result.

[Millennie Al]

that we could have had a first referendum in which the options were (a) to remain or (b) to negotiate a deal on the understanding that we would then hold a second referendum on it (I am not sure whether the deal in question would have been the withdrawal agreement or the subsequent agreement on a future relationship). Obviously we didn't conduct the first referendum on that basis, but otherwise it's a slightly more workable idea. I am not sure what the options in that second referendum would be though. If the only options would have been to accept the deal or remain in the EU, then there would still have been the problem that I mentioned earlier. Any such second referendum would have been based on some kind of leave deal negotiated between a UK government which didn't, at that time, want us to leave (the Cameron government, I mean, because there was no suggestion that he would resign after the first referendum), and the EU, which didn't want us to leave either. That would have been problematic for all sorts of reasons. If the options were to accept the deal or negotiate a different deal then that might have solved some problems, but it would have given rise to others.

Well, obviously the first referendum would have been as it was actually held as it seemed that Remain would win. The strategy after it could have been played with rather more political dexterity. After giving Article 50 notice (necessary to start negotiations), Nigel Farageis put in charge of the negotiations with freedom to choose others to assist. The rules are that he has welve months to negotiate. After that period, if there is no draft agreement, the A50 notice will be withdrawn. If there is an agreement, a fresh referendum will be held to choose between accepting the agreement, or remaining in the EU. If the negotiators chosen by Nigel Farage are unanimous, a third option is added to the ballot of leaving with no agreement.

That would have ensured that the voters were chosing between specific, known alternatives. By making Farage do the negotiation, the Brexiteers cannot complain that their negotiators are not keen on leaving. Yet, I expect he would have been thoroughly useless at negotating, so the deal would have very easily been defeated. The third option is, of course, a booby trap. If present on the ballot paper, it is likely to split the Brexiteer vote and make it even more likely that Remain would win, yet by refusing to add it, the Brexiteers are saying that their deal is the best possible.

[Woodchopper]

I've split the referendum posts from the Leopards ate my face thread.

[Woodchopper]

People, this was all discussed at length at the time.

Legally, the process could have been:

1. Referendum in June 2016.

2. UK government and EU negotiate the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.

3. Those terms are put to the UK UK population in a confirmatory referendum.

The EU granted the UK extensions to the Article 50 period so that the UK could get the required votes in Parliament. An extension could also have been used to give the UK time to organize a referendum.

That didn't happen because there were large political problems.

a) Labour and Conservative MPs had pledged to respect the result of the 2016 referendum. Many people who voted remain believed that the result should be respected. There was never a parliamentary majority for another referendum.

b) There were four policy options:
- Accept the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated.
- Ask to extend the Article 50 process in order to renegotiate.
- Leave with no Withdrawal Agreement.
- Remain

The result of the confirmatory referendum would not have had political legitimacy because none of the above options had the support of a majority of the population. (Yes, a winner could have been picked via STV or another voting system, but the outcome would still be that a majority didn't want that option).

You can play fantasy politics with a parliamentary majority for a referendum suddenly arising but you can't avoid the problem of trying to design a referendum which both has legitimacy and delivers a clear result. Either the referendum has four options and a politically ambiguous result, or you cut two of the options and large parts of the population feel disenfranchised.

[Blackcountryboy]

People, this was all discussed at length at the time.

Legally, the process could have been:

1. Referendum in June 2016.

2. UK government and EU negotiate the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.

3. Those terms are put to the UK UK population in a confirmatory referendum.

The EU granted the UK extensions to the Article 50 period so that the UK could get the required votes in Parliament. An extension could also have been used to give the UK time to organize a referendum.

That didn't happen because there were large political problems.

a) Labour and Conservative MPs had pledged to respect the result of the 2016 referendum. Many people who voted remain believed that the result should be respected. There was never a parliamentary majority for another referendum.

b) There were four policy options:
- Accept the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated.
- Ask to extend the Article 50 process in order to renegotiate.
- Leave with no Withdrawal Agreement.
- Remain

The result of the confirmatory referendum would not have had political legitimacy because none of the above options had the support of a majority of the population. (Yes, a winner could have been picked via STV or another voting system, but the outcome would still be that a majority didn't want that option).

You can play fantasy politics with a parliamentary majority for a referendum suddenly arising but you can't avoid the problem of trying to design a referendum which both has legitimacy and delivers a clear result. Either the referendum has four options and a politically ambiguous result, or you cut two of the options and large parts of the population feel disenfranchised.

January 21 2016 Dominic Cummings was interviewed by the Economist:
BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say.
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-note ... c-cummings

[Opti]

Yes, but ...
From June 24th 2016 government policy wrt the EU was being dictated by the ERG and the spectre of Farage.

[snoozeofreason]

January 21 2016 Dominic Cummings was interviewed by the Economist:
BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say.
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-note ... c-cummings

The article is paywalled for me but, from the bit you quoted, it sounds as if Cummings was thinking of a referendum on the terms of our exit - for example one that asked whether the government should seek to remain in the customs union - rather than a referendum that revisited the subject of whether we should leave. That might have been feasible if people were prepared to accept that the terms of our exit were the only things up for discussion, but I think there was only a limited period of time, shortly after the 2016 referendum, in which that would have been the case.

[Woodchopper]

January 21 2016 Dominic Cummings was interviewed by the Economist:
BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say.
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-note ... c-cummings

The article is paywalled for me but, from the bit you quoted, it sounds as if Cummings was thinking of a referendum on the terms of our exit - for example one that asked whether the government should seek to remain in the customs union - rather than a referendum that revisited the subject of whether we should leave. That might have been feasible if people were prepared to accept that the terms of our exit were the only things up for discussion, but I think there was only a limited period of time, shortly after the 2016 referendum, in which that would have been the case.

I agree. Cummings was never going to entertain another referendum with remain as an option.

IMHO the one referendum option which might have had a parliamentary majority would have been a choice between the Withdrawal Agreement and a no deal exit. Though I expect that most people on this board would have denounced that as a fix.