Edit: I got a bit carried away.
Ideally if it were possible the vote should have never been held until there was an actual deal or at least a concrete foundation. Without the actual details of a deal the referendum isn't much better than an opinion poll on the EU because there's no facts about what leave actually means before it's negotiated. Or a vote to initiate the process and another about the actual facts of the deal.
That's simply not true. Both remain and leave campaigns were backed up by dubious or misleading claims about what the future would look like if the UK voted to leave the EU.
Those backing remain claimed Brexit would cause financial instability and require an emergency budget, that unemployment would rise, that NHS finances would be undermined, that families would be £4,300 worse off, that Scotland would immediately leave the UK, etc. David Cameron said he would stay on as Prime Minister in the event of a leave vote. None of these things happened.
Well, Brexit hasn’t occurred yet, so only Cameron’s departure has put the lie to any of Remain’s arguments.
Yes but it's symmetrical.
If result A then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side B
If result B then calls for second referendum greeted with derision by side A
So no conclusion can be drawn by the fact that people are partisan. The question of whether a second referendum is a good idea is independent of the result of the first referendum.
There would be nobody in parliament or government talking about a second referendum if remain had won. In fact it'd have been taken as a mandate to immediately pass more powers to Brussels, see the PESCO.
> The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
Before the results were fully counted, when it looked as if remain had won, leavers were already beginning work on their campaign for a second referendum.
A Remain victory wouldn't have come with a 25% drop in the pound, rampant inflation, the worst growth rate of G8 countries, stockpiling of food and drugs, and an increasing risk to see the world order that brought about the longest period of peace (70 years) in this corner of the world, being toppled.
A Remain victory would also have been obtained in spite of, not thanks to, Russian interference, fake news, and overspending by Vote Leave (as found by the Electoral Commission who referred them to the police)
So yes, somehow the idea of a second referendum makes more sense in one case than in the other. Dunno why...
Why do people spout such provable nonsense?! Inflation is around the BoE target rate of 2% having just nudged down a touch (consensus forecast for Jan 2019 is 2.1%). Rampant inflation is what you see in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. A moment's thought should disabuse you of this opinion.
Back in late 2015, the UK's growth was around 2.9% based primarily on fundamentals that are largely unrelated to Brexit (IT and software). Those fundamentals haven't changed so there's a high likelihood that growth is dragging due to overall negative sentiment as a result of Brexit uncertainty.
Clear that fog, and growth should bounce back. The fastest way to clarity that honours the referendum result, though many don't want to hear it, is a no-deal departure with appropriate WTO exceptions based on national security assertions (de-risking essential supplies) during an FTA negotiation period coupled with the (already given) assertions on the EU citizens' right-to-remain in the UK.
I actually find it really remarkable that 50% of voters were unhappy enough with the EU to go against the status quo.
If A, then result would NEVER be realistically contested If B, then result COULD be realistically contested
No one would argue that if the vote were stay, we'd be seeing it again. It wouldn't happen. Not even maybe.
But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable.
I'm on this fence on this one, and I don't live there, so I don't have a side. But I do see each side's points.
As much as our friends in parliament sometimes make it out to be, it is not purely a match. There is no "underdog" in Brexit; there is one team, the UK, with two options: remain or leave. Choosing a bad option affects everyone equally (except a few career politicians).
With all the shouting and finger pointing it's easy to lose track of this fact: it is not a competition. We're in this together. We're a family, and we might be cutting off the nose to spite the face.
But it has morphed into an us-vs-them issue (brexiteers vs remainers, not even immigrants), and through the lens of competition we only see the finish line.
I mean, your post basically is: Why can't we all just get along.
While it's a noble feeling, the reality is society is fractious, and for complex and nuanced decisions such as brexit there are people who will net-net benefit and people who will net net see detriment. And 'leave option' was the underdog, you might not like to admit it but, the financial and betting markets saw it as such objectively. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and deny this.
Since the referendum new facts have come to light, that of what an exit deal would look like. New facts should allow for a new vote.
If remain had won, there would be no new facts so why would another vote be justified?
2. This is not about FUD. This was egregious lies:
a) Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”
b) David Davies: "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside."
c) Michael Gove: "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want."
d) Boris Johnson: "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."
Never mind the £ 350m for the NHS per week on the bus.
I could go on and on and on...
It is forced to deal with reality, which is that what Brexiteers promised was always undeliverable.
We could well be on path for a third general election in six years, a periodic vote to re-evaluate what we want as a country based on the current state of affairs.
Isn't being able to change your mind based on a changed context fundamental underpinning of a democratic system?
If a 2nd referendum came along a couple years later, nothing would have materially changed.
It's difficult to argue that nothing has materially changed in the process of trying to actually Brexit.
This potential second referendum would be on voting for this actual "deal" or chance of hard Brexit. It would be voting on what May has so far been able to accomplish (or not accomplish). The first referendum was done with no idea on what was going to happen and now the British people can actually see through the lies the Brexiteers made and decide if this is what they actually want. It's much more democratic now that everyone is more aware.
If leave wins again then go right ahead with the hard Brexit, it's what people want. If remain wins then the people have decided against shooting themselves in the foot.
The Brexit result people voted for was an illusion (others call it lies).
So why not let the people vote on the actual results now?
The only reason I see is the fear of the Brexiters that they would fail in a spectacular way after all those failures they delivered since the vote went through.