Could there have been a third EU referendum?

[Martin Y]

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.

I don't know about a fix, exactly, but to stretch the metaphor a bit thinner, it would have taken the narrow vote not to have a curry and made it a choice between kebabs all round or sh.t sandwiches, with a noisy minority clamouring for the delicious sh.t sandwich option.

One thing I do regret about the years after the referendum, and which was perhaps just as stupid as making us vote for an undefined leave option, is the effort that was utterly wasted on trying to campaign for a second referendum without clearly saying whether it was to be on a new question or a rerun of the one we already voted on.

[Millennie Al]

Legally, the process could have been:

1. Referendum in June 2016.

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

I think it was said at the time that the EU was not willing to negotiate a hypothetical withdrawal, so required article 50 notice to have been given before negotiations could start. The effect of that is that the sequence would have to have been:

1. Referendum
2. UK internally decides the factors relevant to negotiation
3. UK makes informal (possibly secret) contact with EU and non-EU countries to get an idea of what is possible
4. UK gives article 50 notice
5. negotiations produce the proposed agreement
6. UK votes on agreement
7. if agreement is accepted, it is put into effect
8. if agreement is rejected, the article 50 notice is withdrawn

To ensure that the article 50 notice can be withdrawn, this must happen before the end of the two year period it starts. While it might be possible to withdraw it after an extension of that period has been agreed, it would be risky to rely on that as any extension might come with conditions that prevent withdrawal.

[Millennie Al]

One thing I do regret about the years after the referendum, and which was perhaps just as stupid as making us vote for an undefined leave option, is the effort that was utterly wasted on trying to campaign for a second referendum without clearly saying whether it was to be on a new question or a rerun of the one we already voted on.

I suspect that that was a result of a desire to get the same advantage as Leave had - different people would support a new referendum without realising that they actually wanted different things.

[Woodchopper]

Legally, the process could have been:

1. Referendum in June 2016.

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

I think it was said at the time that the EU was not willing to negotiate a hypothetical withdrawal, so required article 50 notice to have been given before negotiations could start. The effect of that is that the sequence would have to have been:

1. Referendum
2. UK internally decides the factors relevant to negotiation
3. UK makes informal (possibly secret) contact with EU and non-EU countries to get an idea of what is possible
4. UK gives article 50 notice
5. negotiations produce the proposed agreement
6. UK votes on agreement
7. if agreement is accepted, it is put into effect
8. if agreement is rejected, the article 50 notice is withdrawn

To ensure that the article 50 notice can be withdrawn, this must happen before the end of the two year period it starts. While it might be possible to withdraw it after an extension of that period has been agreed, it would be risky to rely on that as any extension might come with conditions that prevent withdrawal.

Yes, I agree. I'd missed out a few steps for sake of simplicity. Though the result of the informal contacts might have been something like 'probably'. The two year time limit for a referendum would have been sensible.