At the moment (Sept. 2018) there's a discussion in the UK whether there should be a "second referendum" on Brexit. In the media there's already a discussion how people would vote. But upon what would they vote?
The initial referendum was fairly clear. Should the UK leave the EU, following the A...
To this outsider it seems like the "Remain" side is asking for "Best 2 out of 3", but I doubt the "Leave" side would agree to it unless the terms were "Double or nothing"...
Nobody is as of yet asking for a 3rd referendum so I wouldn't call it 2 out of 3. "Double or nothing" also doesn't apply since you cannot exit the EU twice.
"2 out of 3" is what someone who loses a contest says, hoping against hope that he will be given a free chance to win after all. "double or nothing" means, okay you can have another try, but if you lose a second time you need to give me more than previously agreed. For example: hard Brexit, real border controls, end the metric system, declare George to be the best Beatle, or whatever it is that patriotic Britons who voted "Leave" would ask for. (TBH I don't know British politics that well.) The point is, the "Leave" side should expect something in exchange for putting Brexit in jeopardy.
NO, there isn't a "discussion" in the UK. There are a lot of sore losers from the first referendum, and (in the last few days) an organization that used to be a credible political party, but which is now mostly a left-wing love-in, has been holding it's annual conference, and therefore whatever fairy tales its members tell from that platform are "news" so far as the media is concerned.
The procedure (article 50) was not mentioned on the ballot question: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
And regarding "must", there was nothing that mandated the first referendum either. It was political choice to hold it; the UK government/parliament could have legally Brexited (invoked article 50) without any referendum. There was a supreme court decision that the gov't had to ask parliament's approval though: theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/24/…
"The initial referendum was fairly clear." - Really? One side represented an imperfect status quo which was understandable if unpalatable, the other side promised endless ponies and unicorns for all without any specificity. A clear vote would have been between real options. Do you want what we've got? Or what Norway's got where they pay a higher % of GDP to access the single market freely, have to allow free movement and get no vote? Or do you want what Canada's got with no free movement, partial access to the free market and no vote? Or do you want to take a bet that we can do better?
The fundamental problem remains the same as Greece: you can't hold a referendum that obliges other countries to give you concessions, that's simply not within the range of political reality.
...and that seems beyond farfetched..., plenty of EU countries have said they would still prefer the UK to remain a member of the EU, both the countries with strongly pro-federalist governments (France) and the ones that are highly skeptical of EU federalism (Visegrad group), as the latter see in the UK an ally against an EU getting too much power, which only works if the UK is inside the EU. I don't think it's farfetched at all that all other countries agree if the UK asks to postpone or cancels Brexit (although there will be some annoying "you've been wasting our time" voices).
@gerrit: Well, they're diplomats enough to say that now. But under which conditions will the EU27 take back the UK? Postponing on the other hand would be fairly easy to sell; the EU budget runs to the end of 2020. Delaying Brexit to that date could be sold as "simplifying the process"
@MSalters Sure, they might play politics and try to use the situation to reduce the UKs discount or other aspects of its special status, but ultimately I do think the EU27 really do prefer the UK to remain in the EU. It may not be trivial, but I don't think it's "beyond farfetched" either.
@mcottle I think one side did more than just present an 'imperfect status quo', there was a great deal of hyperbole guaranteeing the collapse of the UK's economy, that it would somehow allow another scottish referendum, ect ect.
@ИвоНедев The referendum (the question being asked) was clear. The outcome of the referendum (51.9% leave, 48.1% remain, out of a 72.2% turnout, as per Wikipedia's figures) was a close call and certainly could be argued to be not as clear.
It could be phrased as "why does the Lisbon treaty expect departure from the EU to be an unstructured deal brokerage of 25 years of diplomatic agreements before a 2 year "deal or no deal" agreement". If the EU has failed at good coinage, stable regional deficits, internal tax havens, currency scares, virus-exploitable cookie messages, the most pro-oil ebike regulations in the world, lack of food tracking, lack of packaging information, and all the rest of it, the constitution should have a realistic structure for devolution, like quid pro quo exchanges of priviledges over N years.
@ Michael Kjörling, before the referendum vote, at a time when opinion polls were predicting 52% remain/48% leave, Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, said that such a result would be "undemocratic", and he would demand a second referendum. Looks like he might get it.
Discussion on question by MSalters: W…
Discussion on question by MSalters: W…