Second Referendum, looked at from the day after

Pecker

There's a lot of talk about a second referendum causing problems, and people not being happy.  And a lot of the arguments hold at least some currency, but only if looked at from today's perspective.  What would those arguments look like the morning after a second vote?

If the result was to leave, we'd get 5 minutes of "I told you so", and that'd be it.  No problem.

But what if the result was to remain?  Would anyone be saying at that point that a second vote was undemocratic?  Would anyone really want to argue that we should still leave, despite most people wanting to remain?  Would we see civil unrest from a leave minority?  And if we would, and the fear of that is stopping a second vote, just how democratic is that?

At worst, I think we'd have a debate about a third vote.  I think that would be a good point to say how bad referenda are, and have been.  I think there'd a be a very strong argument indeed for saying issues like this have been shown to be clearly and demonstrably too complex for a simple, binary public vote.  I think the argument would be very solid for saying that remaining or leaving the EU should be down to the will of parliament.

"If we don't leave I'll never vote again!" I hear.  I suspect that number would be small, and that it'd vanish the moment the next big thing in politics appeared.

Rasczak

A People's Vote makes much sense in my view, although I suspect others here will disagree.

Pacifico

I think that is rather naive - there would still be the same chancers trying to block the result.

Why would the losers from a  2nd referendum be any more likely to accept the result than the losers of the 1st?

A binary vote was felt good enough for us to join in the first place - now apparently its all too complicated...

Pecker

If the result was 51 to 49 to remain, but on a smaller turnout, would you think that was legitimate?

What if the turnout was significantly down and there was evidence of disillusioned people simply not bothering to vote, would you still think that was ok?

Even if we did vote again to leave, why would anyone on my side have any faith in a second referendum? We were already promised faithfully that this was a once in a generation vote and the government would implement what we decided - backed up by the main opposition party promising to uphold the result.

How can anyone believe a second referendum would settle anything?

Pacifico

For the record, I've never agreed with referenda, and disagreed with us having this last one.

I was too young to oppose the one in the '70s.

There's no problem with people opposing the result of the 2nd (or a 3rd or a 4th) referendum.

I just think the argument that it would be undemocratic, and people wouldn't stands for it is flawed.

Pecker

we had one almost 3 years ago - didn't that work out well...

Sonic67

For the record, I don't think it would 'settle' anything.

But I don't think most people still want to leave (I could be wrong, this would be the only way of finding out), and I don't think it'd be wrong to cancel Brexit without a second referendum.

Once we'd had vote 1 saying leave and vote 2 cancelling it, I think we could go back to parliamentary democracy for future decisions.

But my main point - lest it become lost - is that the ideas that a second referendum would create a backlash are not tenable, particularly when looked at from the other side of such a vote.

LV426

If you don't respect the first vote why should a second be respected? In fact if it's a narrow vote for Remain then I assume you also back a third vote. And a fourth? I've no problem if we are going to have more democracy, but not if it's till you get the result you want and then stop. Why not just have no vote at all and admit you don't care about democracy you just want to Remain in the EU and that's that. Please don't feel you have to maintain a semblance of democracy. People aren't stupid. We haven't seen civil unrest from Remain so why is another vote needed? Why does it need two votes to leave and one to remain?

Let me guess.

You want another vote as the vote didn't go the way you wanted. That's it.

Also note, it would have merit if there was now huge support for Remain.

If it's another narrow vote, and it looks like it would be, it doesn't solve anything. You still have a divided country.

And you aren't addressing the EU's point of view. I'm assuming they would like someone who's a happy member. A country that was in under duress will be trouble. It will have Brexit MEPs trying to vote against everything and a PM reluctant to sign up to much as they will need to appease around 50% of the population. A voting population. And everything the EU does, every vote, every reform, every request for more money will be scrutinised, blown up and yet another drive for a vote to leave yet again.

And yet you were going to be out campaigning for a reform to FPTP? Seems like you were happy when it was something you wanted.
How about a referendum on the monarchy? Opposed to that as you are against referenda, or in favour as it might go your way?

Which?

Pecker

The biggest problem I see with the so-called "Peoples' Vote" is in the choices that it appears many advocates (at least, the politicians we see promoting it on the TV) propose - offering a choice between Remain and another thing that some might argue is not "leave".

It's at best only a partial severing of the relationship.  May's deal, alongside various other debated deals, all involve remaining part of parts of the EU infrastructure - whether it's Customs or Trade or whatever (but with much reduced or zero ability to influence).  This is what we apparently will be offered as an alternative to retaining full membership.

If, hypothetically, just about all of the Leave voters believed that they were voting for a full departure, how could or should they vote, given such a new choice?

And I have yet to see any TV interviewer ask such a question of a proponent of the second referendum.

To be wholly fair, it needs to be a choice of at least three; remain, leave or "deal" (i.e. part leave/part remain).  Of course a straight three-way choice would likely result in no popular majority (i.e. more than half of the votes cast) in favour of any.  So in order to establish (what might be called) "the will of the people" as well as it possibly can be, it would have to be configured as a transferable vote - where people are required to give (in the case of a three-way ballot) their first and second choices.  Once the losing option is discounted, those voters' second choice is then counted to arrive at a decision.

Sonic67

I don't see a second referendum as being about not respecting the result of the first.

Why do people not respect the British electorate enough to allows them to change their minds?

Frankly, shouting "NO, YOU'VE HAD YOUR CHANCE, YOU'VE HAD YOUR VOTE, YOU'RE NOT ALLOSED ANOTHER!" is not my idea of showing respect to anyone.