Second referendum or general election?

Hoping that Macron does us all a favour and shouts ' NON'.
'We will not allow any further extensions' ?

I believe in remain and reform. Let's all take a much greater interest in the EU and it's workings. Have a Labour/LibDem/Green coalition that makes this country a better place to live in for most of it's citizens [except for the tax dodgers] and then if in 10 or so years time people think being in the EU isn't working for us have another referendum that, this time, is based on facts. As one of Steve's placards says 'Lead with Facts, not Leave with Lies.

Agree 100% with you Kitty.

*growstuff I do agree with your proposal, but of course people can't be asked whether they 'still' want to do anything, as a sizeable number of voters would not have been old enough to take part in the 2016 referendum.

Government by plebiscite may work for a small population but for a nation with an electorate in excess of 10 million let alone 40 or 50 million or more. In broad terms we should not be using referendums at all. However having got ourselves in this position by curtesy of Johnson, Groves and company I think that we need a referendum that has three questions that are leave with a deal, leave with no deal and remain. The voting should use a simple preference system, you vote 1 for your first preference 2 for your second preference and 3 for your least referred option. If on the first count there is a clear winner that is it, if not then the count continues until the 2 front runners are determined at that point a fresh referendum is run with the two front runners being the only questions asked.

I accept your point, Davidhs and I admit I don't know the answer. I do think a GE would be a really bad idea for the reasons stated above.

Nevertheless, I can see that a new referendum wouldn't be entirely satisfactory. Perhaps it should be made perfectly clear that it would be advisory and, as I suggested above, in two (or more) stages. Maybe people should be asked if they still wanted to leave/remain. If the result is "leave" they should be asked whether they would be prepared to leave with no deal. They should then be asked what their priorities for a deal would be.

I know that sounds tedious, but if people really are serious about the future of their country, I think they should at least be prepared to spend some time making their views detailed and explicit.

The problem with a referendum is, what is the question going to be.
Will it be, In or out of EU or Deal or no deal

Out of EU may well win but No deal probably won’t.

A referendum is not on the agenda because Corbyn wants a GE on his own terms and it looks like he will get it, what the Brexit outcome will be very uncertain.

I second that, Nandalot.

The 1975 referendum was a confirmation because we were already in the Common Market. It would have been foolish at any time to have change for change's sake, without considering whether the alternative was indeed better.

I agree with Kitty Lester. Referendum first now that all the implications of Brexit with deal and without a deal are clearer, then an election where other policies can be put out and decisions based on those rather than just the one issue of Brexit. I fear a GE election now will be a one issue affair.

Does that mean that sticking with the 1975 referendum result was equally foolish?

Apparently, there's been a big rush in the number of young people registering to vote. One of my children is in that position and it appears there's a social media pressure to remind them to register. For some, it will be the first time they've had to be responsible for getting registered.

Thank you for conceding that I am right about the electorate not being static. I do realise that it will be different next year … and the next. That's why not having a written constitution has been an advantage to the UK, but the changes our society make are subtle and gradual. We don't have a constitution such as the US, so people can't jump up and down and shout "Amendment whatever" based on something written in 1776.

It would be an incredibly foolish government which picked some random point of time and decided that a country should be ruled according to any consensus at that time … to infinity and beyond.

Supposedly Johnson wants an election at a time when a lot of young people will struggle to vote because they'll be in the process of leaving for university [in fact, I think they've even admitted it's true]. I know one could say that it's up to young people to organise a postal vote etc but, when one is in the process of leaving home for the first time etc it isn't always easy to do everything. And, going back to the subject of the referendum, the leave campaign said we wouldn't leave without a deal [which would be easy...].

We could go round in circles arguing about the actual role of an MP. As far as I know, it isn't written in stone, so everybody interprets it differently. MPs would be foolish to vote against any known consensus in their constituency because they'll lose their seat, but there isn't any obligation to do what their constituents want.

MPs represent their constituents, but they're not there to do the populists' bidding. They are supposed to have an overview of the bigger picture and to understand the national and international context. A bit like responsible parents, I suppose.

Some people will always vote for the same party (less so now, I think) for whatever reason, while others might vote for a good constituency MP, who spends time in the constituency and takes the time and trouble to act on individuals' concerns.

To be honest, with a FPTP system, it doesn't matter how most people vote because only a few hundred thousand people in marginal constituencies make any difference. Personally, I think that's a big part of the problem. People feel their voices aren't heard and one thing that the referendum did was give people a direct voice.

There were many constitutional "experts" at the time who questioned how it would work. They pointed out that it was never going to be as simple as just walking out and starting out on our own. Unfortunately, the sensible voices were drowned out by the hysteria and false promises and people assuming they knew what would happen because that's what they wanted.

I totally agree Nanny007 ( love your name by the way , an old lady licences to kill lol !! )

You’re right growstuff in three years the electorate has changed but it will change next month also and in a years time and in ten years, the vote was taken as a moment in time and just because things have moved no doesn’t negate the previous outcome surely?

Or does it? Because it doesn’t go the way a percentage of the U.K. population wanted does that mean it doesn’t count?

One thing I do wonder about ( briefly , because who am I are after all lol) , if we voted to leave then why are so many MPs anti leave when I foolishly thought we voted an MP in to present the wishes of those he/she represented not their own personal point of view?

I shall gracefully bow out of this thread because I can argue the toss from here to eternity but my voice is plainly worthless as we are still in the EU and unlikely to ever leave.

I shall continue to vote , but after 40 years I have no idea for whom or why to be honest .

There may have been lies told at the time of referendum. By both sides.

I do hope that your meaningless mantra wasn't in response to my post, nanny007. I was making a specific point about the fact that we were lied to by the Leave campaigns about how easy leaving the EU would be. It would be good if a Leaver was able to address that particular point and perhaps tell us just how all the experts who told us it would be a complex and lengthy process were wrong... Instead of trotting out the 'both sides told lies' phrase as if it were a clincher...

The London-based MSM is overwhelmingly pro-Leave.

There may have been lies told at the time of referendum. By both sides.

But we were asked to vote by our government in a referendum. We were told that the result would be implemented. Then when the result was not the one that our ministers expected many of them either ignored it or have actively worked against it.

There was a General Election where the main parties and MPs campaigned and stated they would abide by and implement the referendum result. We would leave the EU.

This has not happened.

I cannot believe a single word most of our political (and London based MSM) spout anymore. Lies. Self serving liars, who have shown us plebs just what they really think of our 'votes'.

So who do you think is sovereign, merlotgran? I must admit I find your post a little confusing. Personally, I don't think we should ever have government by referendum. The government of 66 million people is far too complicated to be based on snap decisions of people who don't have an overview of the bigger picture. That means that parliament (ie all MPs are sovereign). If parliament had its way now, without being bullied by the government and having to look over its shoulder at voters, Article 50 would be revoked and probably never been signed in the first place.

And I'm sick of people accusing "Remainers" of insisting on something they aren't.

It's three years since the referendum. The electorate has changed. It is a fact that about three million have died and a similar number has now turned 18. The "people" aren't the same people.

All of us now have a clearer idea what leaving the EU would mean. There are suggestions that some people have changed their minds, but without a new referendum, nobody really knows.

We know for certain that money was spent illegally during the referendum and that there were lies. Nobody really knows whether people believed those lies. We need to strip it bare and give people a more informed and honest option.

A people's vote is just a referendum by another name. What are we paying politicians for if every time they can't come up with the goods the public have to decide what happens next.

We already voted once and because it didn't go the way many wanted here we are , years down the line with democracy in disarray

Democracy isn't in disarray; democracy allows for opposition, and that opposition is perfectly legitimate from day 1. And if the opposition carries the day that is perfectly legitimate, too.

However, democracy was badly subverted at the time of the 2016 referendum through the use of illegality and cheating. This has already been acknowledged to be so in court. If practices such as targeted 'dark ads' are allowed to remain part of the electoral process then democracy will be well and truly dead.

Over the last 3 years the government tried very hard to implement the leave vote. They weren't particularly effective because they went about it in a very stupid fashion and I am not prepared to subscribe to the Leavers' myth that failure was the fault of Remainers in the government.

Had May's ultimate aim been to remain in the EU she would have revoked A50 just before she resigned; she must have known that hardline Johnson was favourite for her job; revoking would have achieved what Leavers perceive to have been her intention all along and it would have stymied Johnson.

Leaving the EU was always going to be a complex process taking a great many years. But a lot of very irresponsible people told a lot of very irresponsible lies about how easy it was going to be and what great deals we were going to get. I can understand this being the source of Leavers' frustration now, but the lies had nothing to do with reality.

I feel the same, NanaandGrampy.

I doubt I will bother voting anymore.
I am not alone. Many friends and family, both leavers and remainers are also realising just how pointless it is.

I definitely don't want a second referendum. If my vote wasn't worth anything the first time I won't bother again.

I'm so sick of remainers insisting we didn't know what we were doing and were too thick to understand the implications.

I've tried really hard to keep an open mind but when it boils down to it it's just throwing toys out of a pram.

Sick of the whole thing now.