Brexit again, should we have a second referendum?

Not a second Referendum at all - a NEW and different Referendum on the final deal, when we know clearly the implications, on jobs, industry, fiancial sector, air space, nuclear and medical research, energy supplies, Irish border and Gibraltar, and so much more.

Looks like the legal challenge will make it a legal requirement anyhow-so YES.

If anyone tells me again that they knew exactly what they were voting for- but cannot give me clear answers to the above - then it is just nonsense.

Completely agree, jura; I have a sinking feeling though that it won't happen...

It's my view that the vote in June 2016 was misguided. The general populace had almost no factual information either for or against. Many people even now are not aware of any benefits of remaining in the EU, nor of the potential pitfalls of exiting.

I agree with jura2 we should have a vote on the deal that's finally agreed.

What a complete mess Cameron led us into. I hope he's proud of his legacy.

No, no, no, no, no! Remember there was a healthy majority for Remain until the campaign started - and the proposition was lost. What is the evidence that the result would be different running a second campaign with a smaller starting point majority?

M0nica, a referendum to agree the final deal would, by definition, be based on fact.

I think the evidence is that, by the government's own figures we will take a hit to the economy, ranging from damaging to disastrous depending on the scenario, if we leave.

There is also the unsolvable problem of the Irish border and the threat to the Good Friday Agreement. Does anyone really want to see a fresh outbreak of conflict in Northern Ireland? I would be extremely saddened to think that anyone would contemplate that as being an acceptable price to pay for leaving the EU.

I would hope that the famous British pragmatism would resurface and people think "Is it really worth it?"

Of course we should, a properly constructed one with accurate facts available for both sides and people at the helm who just might have the tiniest idea what they are talking bout.
Will we?
All pigs refuelled and ready for take off or do I mean

From Wiki, a description of the preparation of the public before the vote to join the EU in 1975:
"The campaign, funding and media support
The government distributed pamphlets to every household in Britain written by the official Yes and No campaigns, together with its own pamphlet which argued in support of EC membership.[14] According to this pamphlet, "the most important (issues in the renegotiation) were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS".
This is the minimum which should have been done before the 2016 referendum, of if there's a second one.

Not sure we will have facts, just what the actual deal is but not what the impact will be on us. We would then be back to the experts and their opinions on what the implications would be and then all the guff about not trusting experts again!

Why can't we just have a cross-party group of negotiators and then it won't be any party's fault that we have a bad deal, which we will have no matter how good our negotiators are!

No. Definitely no.

Totally agree, there should be another referendum based on given facts, however unpalatable they may be to either side. I would also like to see a few people taken to task for the bad campaign that was run by both sides last time. Osborne with his stupid, wild figures trying to scare people into voting to remain, Cameron's arrogant assumption that the vote would go in his favour and refusing to allow the Civil Service to prepare for a Brexit vote. And as for Boris J, well, he should be censured for the blatant lies he told. Cameron and Osborne have gone on to 'better' things of course, but Boris is still there.

Agree Nonnie a cross party team needs to be involved, this is far too serious a long term decision to be made by any one political party, and should be above party politics. There are for and against within both the Conservative and Labour parties of course, so it should not necessarily end up being on party grounds.

I would both welcome and dread a second referendum. It would be both divisive and acromonious. But the 2016 referendum was based on lies and lack of information and people couldn’t possibly understand the complexities of the situation.
The single market, customs union, Free trade areas, tariffs, the Northern Irish border, the good Friday agreement were hardly mentioned. Immigration loomed large, more money for the NHS and “Taking control of our Borders” were seen as important.
But now we seem to be more worried about the problems that borders and controls would create in Northern Ireland and at Dover, losing our car industry and a post-Brexit shortage of nurses and doctors.
We were asked to vote and most voted with their heart (or as Vince Cable put it, nostalgia for the past) rather than a rational weighing up of facts as clear facts were scarce.
But would another referendum be less emotional and more rational?

Blinko Facts and how they are spun.

But would another referendum be less emotional and more rational?

I very much doubt it. I think it would be, if anything, more emotional as Brexiters have the potential to lose a lot of face if the result goes against them and Remainers will campaign harder and more passionately than they did in the run up to the 2016 ref.

On the other hand, we have a much clearer idea now of what the effects of leaving will be. We have the government's Impact Assessments which make it absolutely clear (and the PM has said this herself) that, economy wise, no option will be as good as the one we now have with the EU. (We also have a great deal more evidence of harm but I'll not bore you with it...)

It will be interesting if it turns out that the government is legally obliged to run another referendum but I'm not holding out much hope for it.

Juraj2 I totally agree. We should be asked to vote on the final terms if when they are finally thrashed out. The whole thing has been a debacle, right from the almost complete lack of information before the Referendum, the complacency of the Cameron government who took it for granted that the vote would go their way, so didn't make any effort to campaign and the misinformation (guesswork?) put out by the Leave campaigners.
Having said all that, I doubt that we will be asked to think again when we have more information - the idea of a 'second referendum' is not popular and tends to be dismissed as something which Remoaners, being apparently sore losers, want. That's a pity as something as life-changing as this is in the interests of us all, irrespective of our Brexit feelings.

Another referendum will be a lot more emotional, and probably very nasty. I understand there are protocols within Parliamentary procedures, and there are also a lot of egos looking after their own party careers rather than their constituents, but surely I can't be the only one who looks around at Russia (out of control megalomaniac), China ( just 'elected' their Premier for life), USA ( Trump. No other word necessary), is this really a good time to go it alone? I think that we need some people to stand up, tell it how it is, and I for one think that the impact statements should be published, opinions of people like John Major who sweated blood and tears to drag both sides into the Good Friday agreement, an agreement which has potentially saved many lives, including those of British Service personnel, should not just be dismissed as old has beens, or as interfering meddlers. When this has all been done, as it should have been before the first referendum, we then should be able to have a second vote. David Cameron has got a lot to answer for, he set up this debacle, stood by while lies were told by both sides, and has swanned off into his own well paid sunset, leaving Teresa May to potentially go down in history as the PM who made the biggest political mistake of recent history.

Just read this in the Independent:
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-second-referendum-lock-legal-challenge-david-cameron-dominic-grieve-a8250266.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

well, all of those who wanted to take back control should be happy with this Ourkid. Makes Cameron look even more weak and spineless than he appeared after the result. I do wish that politicians like Hammond would answer the questions though, why couldn't he say that the economic future is looking shaky, and that the electorate (myself included) were not fully informed of the potential future problems, BUT he realised that as a member of the government he would have to go with the referendum result. Why can't they say that they are not happy with it? We all know that May, Hammond were remainers.

Yes. There is a petition at the moment to have a second vote, once the 'facts' are known. Quite apart from the excellent posts so far, there is now the threat of Russia. It has become crystal clear that Trump is cosying up to Rusia and if we are not a part of the EU, who will be our allies?

What chance is there that the Leave crowd will listen to the facts if there was a next time? As was said this morning by Vince Cable, too many of the 'older generation' looked back with "nostalgia for a world where passports were blue, faces were white and the map was coloured imperial pink".
"And it was their votes on one wet day in June which crushed the hopes and aspirations of young people for years to come," he said.
Why should these blinkered views change just because of facts?

Hopefully the small magnitude of the margin between the sides last June means that a relatively small number of Leavers changing their mind - and more importantly, those who didn't vote then expressing an opinion this time - can still outweigh those people you are describing, yggdrasil

And of course two years’ worth of younger voters replacing the older “nostalgic” ones perhaps?

But I suspect the Government is going to quickly close the loophole that might have opened the way to a legal challenge for a second referendum.