My second referendum preference is something like (Stay; May; Hard) ranked choice with the proviso that in a runoff Stay has to beat whichever leave option it faces by more than Leave beat Remain in '16. So if Stay beat Hard Brexit by 51.5% v. 48.5% the U.K would leave without a deal.

I might even tilt it a little bit further in Leave's favour and say Stay would have to score 53.11% or more in a runoff, for a 10 point net swing versus 2016. Remainers should imo empathise with Leavers who oppose a second referendum and in particular seek to avoid a scenario where Remain won with 50.1% of the vote and Leave was suddenly memory holed. That's a bad look and imo Remainers should be willing to "spot" Leave a couple of points in the interests of maintaining democratic goodwill. Requiring a super majority to overturn the political default (currently Leave) has much precedent and is probably a good idea (see: 2016 referendum).

If the first was legally binding then it would be wrong to include Remain as an option on a second referendum.

But it was advisory, and having pursued the possibility of a good Brexit deal)to few people's satisfaction) it's logical for a second referendum to include the Remain option.

Because you only care about getting what you want, not what is fair and true.

It's a weird form of democracy where getting the majority of the vote is not enough to win.

All forms of democracy are weird in some way.

It would be an even weirder form of democracy that didn't allow Parliament to be sovereign and allowed plebiscites to rule over it.

**** it who cares. i was worried about this for a long time, but **** it who cares. not like mogg&co will take to the streets as most of them are fat and/or over 75

maybe the dumbs will react by voting in simon cowell or something but i am prepared to take that chance

The majority

The majority who voted more than 30 months ago.

Not really. Lots of democracies build in counter-majoritorian clauses. Consensus provides more legitimacy than a bare majority, so it makes sense to shade more towards that as a requirement on some very important decisions (eg Constitutional amendments in the US).

Yep. Tell it to all the people trying to overturn democracy.

LOL so kicking the can down the road and deliberate blocking of progress should be rewarded?

Are you in a job that's paid by the hour or something?

FWIW I think it would be wonderful for Britain if we did brexit on your **** up of a plan, then we rejoin Europe in a couple years after passing all the necessary requirements.

I think the optimal direction of the country is to fundamentally agree your generation destroyed the country, finish letting you **** it all the way up, and let my generation fix it from the ground up.

pfft EU will disintegrate or federalise anyway, either way we're better out.

It's been a terrible waste of everyone's time with consequences for business and the economy, but it sounds like you're afraid of asking the people specifically what they want now.

Who'd have guessed the Mr Democracy is such a hypocrite?

There's no 'should' about it but it's simply a fact that time diminishes and the longer we can remain in the EU after the 1st referendum, the easier it gets to make the case for 'asking again' and forget about any commitments to honour the first result.

It's part of the reason why leavers are so scared of a long extension and why remainers quite like the idea. Plus the demographic changes favours remainers.

So you think the economic/political consequences of leaving are positive?

So presumably you voted leave?

There are fundamental reasons to oppose a second referendum but also many reasons in favour of a second referendum. I have no issue with someone who thinks one set of reasons are stronger than the other but it's obtuse to deny there really are "both sides".

BTW, it seems most Leavers think no deal is preferable, by a large amount, to May's deal (which they think is a turkey). Wouldn't it make sense to roll the dice on a referendum where they'd have a shot at Real Brexit? If Britain doesn't crash out in eleven days I think it's unlikely parliament will ever allow Real Brexit w/o a(nother) referendum. So why not a referendum with Remain and Real Brexit (and maybe May's deal too) on the ballot? Think about this: May's deal will only get voted by Leave MPs. The argument "Brexit got betrayed" would come from the same people who voted against (a) Brexit!! IMO it's "fair" to tell them: look, *either* you accept May's compromise Brexit *or* we'll give you a chance at Real Brexit but then Remainers get a(nother) chance at Remain. Let them make their choice.

(alternatively parliament could pass Norway+/BINO: but wouldn't this be seen as a betrayal - an overwhelmingly Remain parliament voting to (de facto) remain against the people's will - by the vast majority of Leavers? Again, wouldn't they prefer a chance at Real Brexit?)

Seems OK at first glance but if the second choice has any weight, May's option will be everyone's second choice, so will win. If second choice has no real weight, then the two Leave options will be split and remain will slip in, even if less than 50%, and will rightly be seen as a dirty trick

Don't understand your post.

3 way options usually have a first and second choice, with the second choice having less weighting than the first choice

Norway-plus or whatever they call it would not be in any way a betrayal. It fully meets the question put to the people:

Norway is not a member of the European Union.

Lol you lot have been saying it is going to disintegrate happen for decades. You far right neo nazis and neo nazi supporters are actually trying to make it happen. It still wont happen.

It may federalise, depending on your definition. Britain would be better off being leading from within a federal EU than outside of it, but we all know this is objectively true.

Bercow sez there can't be MV3

Brexit: John Bercow rules out third meaningful vote on same deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-on-same-deal