If Labour promises a new EU referendum, would you vote for them?

nabby

By having a referendum on the deal negotiated? Even though some on here think we need more referenda in our lives? Even though Brexiteers have been moaning for years about how we didn't get a say on Lisbon or Maastricht or other treaties? All of a sudden, the people getting to have a say is a bad idea? I seriously don't get it....

Bl4ckGryph0n

It's a bad idea to have a referendum on the deal because it gives the EU an incentive to give us a bad deal.

Which is why this election is a good idea. Vote for who you think will get the best deal, and for your local MP to represent you in the final parliament vote on it.

tapzilla2k

There is 1 year and 11 months to come to a deal. How many referenda should there be in that period to gain 'approval' from the people? How practical do you think that is?

The choice has been made to be out, with that guidance the primary objective is to leave, possibly with a deal in place, but also possibly not....These aren't the kind of negotiations where it is helped if you show your full hand upfront or in public.

So no it isn't all of a sudden a bad idea. It is just not the kind of position where it makes sense to have one. Refreshing the government with a full mandate should be sufficient.

Bl4ckGryph0n

It's time you and others appreciated just how big of a disadvantage Article 50 puts us in. The EU can offer us any deal they like and at a time of their own choosing within the 2 year time frame. They can run the clock down and refuse an extension forcing us to either take the deal on offer or reject it thus WTO rules and possible Economic damage that might bring. Us saying we'll have a second referendum on a deal doesn't really offer the EU an incentive to give us a bad deal. As the end result would be us walking out without a deal, which is ultimately not in the EU's interest as a deal will have to be done eventually. We'll have much more scope to negotiate when it comes to trade talks with the EU once we are out of the EU.  


This election is all about the internal politics of the Tory Party and May knowing that if she waited she wouldn't have very long to convince people whatever deal she negotiates is a good one before going to the polls. A bad deal that ruins the Economy would wipe out the Tories lead in the polls and likely cause a hung parliament. That's worst case scenario. Hence going to the polls early to get breathing space between a deal be concluded and ratified and the next GE taking place.

If we do have a second referendum it will have to be on the deal that the EU offers at the end of the article 50 process. Given we do not know what that deal is going to look like we can't really say with any certainty if there will be a public demand for a second referendum or if it causes another general election through an unforeseen crisis. Or people will be happy, the deal gets approved and we move onto the trickier second part of Brexit - Trade deal with the EU.

The choice was to stay or leave. No guidance was given by the public as to how the Government should go about the exit process. Which is why a second referendum might be the only way to ratify the deal in the UK once a deal is on the table ready to be signed. That deal will have to be approved by each memberstate within their constitutional rules, then the EU Parliament etc. Saying we'll hold a referendum on the deal doesn't give a whole lot away. As it's entirely possible some memberstates might decide they need to have a refurendum on the deal if it proposes significant changes to the EU. So we could have a really good deal that gets scuppered by a memberstate that doesn't like it.

That's the thing, unless May spells out what she intends to achieve with the Brexit Deal in detail, it does not actually give us the level of information required to make an informed choice. Thus there is no mandate. Which means we might see the deal cause another General Election if Parliament cannot agree on it i.e. Lords rebelling or the Tory Party splitting over the issue.

The sensible thing to do is to have a plan in place for a second referendum, but only put that plan into action if it's required. For all we know that's probably one of the things the civil service and Government have looked at privately.

Also I do believe a referendum will be required if significant constitutional changes have to made post Brexit. Which may include further devolution, changes to the voting system, changes to the Lords and so on.

tapzilla2k

I completely appreciate the mechanics. I just have a different opinion on how best to deal with it.

We should not give away our best leverage which is the EU needing a good exit deal to help cover the loss of our £10bn net contribution.

Yes the EU may give us no deal and we may lose out for a time under WTO rules. But lose out to the tune of £10bn per year? We already do most of our trade outside the EU. That doesn't seem to suffer from mainly being under WTO rules.

We should only negotiate our exit in conjunction with a trade deal. And if we don't get what we want then we should walk away.

IronGiant

The choice was remain or leave, in or out....No need to mix up the exit process with a 'deal'. There was no option for a little bit in or a little bit out....

Just like with any non-eu block, I'm confident everyone agrees that we'd like to trade with everyone in the world. Do we need a referendum for each deal to be ratified? Of-course not, why have a dog and bark yourself. We vote in politicians to give our civil servants guidance and direction of which way we need to go. That then gets reviewed every 5 years (or sooner) which seems fine to me. No need to give them permission at every junction...

tapzilla2k

Everyone does that's the fun in debating it.

If it's a choice between the stability of the EU project that will ultimately trump the Economics of our exit and the loss of UK cash.



It's entirely possible the EU could negotiate trade deals with other countries that dwarfs our net contributions. As it is they are negotiating a deal with the South American trading block I forget the name of. That could be signed, sealed and delivered this year depending on the French.

The EU has already decided it's not going to do that, so it's pointless arguing over it. They want the terms of the exit settled before they even go near trade deal talks. It forces us into a very narrow negotiating position at least during the first stage of Brexit. It's probably going to take a decade or so to fully extract ourselves from the EU properly.

IronGiant

Article 50 puts us on the back foot as we will have to appease to all remaining members to agree with anything we propose.  Most of us get that.  So it seems more likely that that EU will impose a deal on us.  So the likelihood is that we either accept their deal or get kicked out on our collective arses.  I'm not sure how helpful a referendum in two years on "do we a) accept these paltry terms or b) go it alone" will be

Bl4ckGryph0n

Nothing was offered on what the form an exit would look like. That's put the Government in a bit of a tricky spot. Article 50 is the process to exit, no trade deals with the EU will happen until after that fact. A deal or no deal is crucial to us leaving the EU in an orderly or disorderly fashion.

I think there is a fear amongst those who want to leave the EU, that any referendum on an exit deal will cause Brexit to not happen. Hence all the vitriol about remoaning you see on twitter.  

That's not the issue here. We are leaving a trading block and have to extract ourselves from the various laws and rules we've put in place over 40 years. We are likely looking at fundamental constitutional reforms of the UK after Brexit, something the Civil Service might not be able to cope with alongside everything else it has to do. Doing trade deals with non EU memberstates will be a cake walk in comparison to exiting the EU.

If you didn't notice I said any referendum on an exit deal should only take place once a final offer is on the table and not before. If May wants to axe the Human Rights Act and Replace it with a bill of rights then that is something that would definitely need a referendum to decide.

tapzilla2k

Did we have a referendum to put it in place?