THE CASE FOR A SECOND REFERENDUM IN THE UK

The Facts

In June 2016 British voters were asked: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union

The question assumes a binary choice  Remain or Leave the EU while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions, then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result of the present process, we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options.

In the case of Brexit, the hidden complexity concerned:
— Leave, and adopt an EFTA or WTO framework?
— Leave, while the UK remains intact or while it splits up?
— Remain, in what manner?

Argument 1: Andy Price, head of politics, Sheffield Hallam University

Regardless of whether people voted Leave or Remain, the 18 months since the referendum have shown what a challenge Brexit is to deliver, and some of the long-term impacts the UK’s departure from the EU will have. This is why the simple, one-off question put to the electorate in the June 2016 referendum was never going to be the final word on this. This was never a binary choice of in or out of the European project, as shown by ongoing discussions around membership of the single market and the customs union. What really should have appeared on the ballot in 2016 was a series of questions: do you want to leave the EU as a whole? Would you like to stay in the single market and the customs union? Do you value freedom of movement, integrated financial systems, the reduction of barriers to trade? This why a second referendum is now required.

It’s essential because British people only started to ask the questions above after June 2016. Not only did they not know the answers to such questions at the time of the original referendum, but the vast majority of people couldn’t have fully understood the questions.

Put simply, the June 2016 referendum started a meaningful national debate about EU membership for the first time in at least a generation. This debate should have happened many years ago.

Argument 2:  Ben Williams, tutor in politics and political theory, University of Salford

The primary argument in favour of holding a second referendum is that there have been further significant political developments and changes since the original vote in favour of Brexit. These have included various shifts within the UK economy, the nature of the final  “divorce” settlement with the EU, and ongoing movements in public opinion. It is ultimately a core element of any liberal democracy that voters have the right to change their mind or review key political decisions if circumstances appear to have changed.

An argument often cited by opponents of Brexit is that the vote of June 2016 indicated a somewhat narrow desire for “departure” from the EU, but it did not endorse what the final “destination” would be. For example, whether the UK would remain within the single market.

With a rather hazy destination in the pipeline, Remainers argue that this would justify a revision of the referendum decision.On this basis, there is a strong argument to make that the voters deserve a further say on any final deal agreed with Brussels.

Argument 3: Former PM Tony Blair

Going back to the British people in a second referendum is the proper thing to do now that people better understand  what is at stake and this would bring the country the "closure" it craves, rather than disunity. Given all that has happened, the undemocratic thing is to deny people a final say. In a new referendum both sides will be able to make their case in the context of the experience of the Brexit negotiation, and what the British people have learned through it.

What would the questions be?

Some supporters of a second referendum say the option of remaining in the EU should not be on the ballot as Britain has already voted on this. That would mean voters decide between Mrs May's agreement and a so-called no-deal scenario.

Other supporters want a ballot on the prime minister's package and staying in the bloc, warning that presenting the option of no-deal could be dangerous because of the economic consequences of such a scenario.

Others support all three questions being on the ballot.

Voters could then be given a second vote which is counted if no option gets 50% or more for first preferences and their first choice is knocked out.