What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?

Question

Closely related to: What would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?

Currently, there is discussion about a possible second referendum fueled by Labour, and there seems to be the publicly voiced conception that Lord Kerr (who is regarded as being somewhat authorative) sees it perfectly possible that UK revokes its Article 50 notification, and this just works out.

In particular:

If, having looked into abyss, we changed our minds about withdrawal, we certainly could - and no-one in Brussels could stop us.

That's quite problematic, considering that not just the UK has looked into abyss, but the remaining states have as well. Even assuming it was technically possible to simply stop Brexit now, it couldn't possibly work that way practically, since it would serve as a precedent for copycats invoking Article 50 over and over again regularly, every time causing billions of damage to economy and causing a massive destabilization of the entire union, effectively being a means of blackmailing co-member states. So, from a purely practical point of view, this is actually not something that should be remotely possible.

Also, back in 2017, the EU Commission explicitly stated earlier the same day UK filed the notification that whether or not to give notification is everybody's discrete decision, but the notification is a do-once point-of-no-return thing. This was well-understood by all parties.
That point of view does seem to make sense, too. After all, invoking Article 50 and giving the notice is akin to telling your wife: "I slept with your sister, and now I want the divorce". You cannot take this back, once you said it.

Now, looking more closely and not taking one sentence out of context, it seems like Kerr himself indeed is not as absolutely positive about it as it may seem, either:

The European union is a union of democracies. If this Parliament asked – and our Government conveyed our request – for an extension, in my judgement it would certainly be given.

Now wait a moment. He said "ask", not "inform" or "tell". Ask implies the other side can say "no". Also, he said "extension", not "reversal". Also, extension would (likely) be given, in his judgement.
So that doesn't look quite as confident, and indeed suggests that UK cannot just unilaterally revoke Brexit. Or, at all.
Rather, it looks like they might kind of ask for mercy (sorry for the slightly provocative wording) and if the remaining member states decide so (which Kerr believes would happen) then an extension would be granted. Extension, not reversal. That's a totally different thing, altogether.

Time to look what's actually in that infamous Article 50. There is nothing in there that I can see which suggests it is possible to revoke at all. In my understanding, the wording, in particular sentence (3)

... failing that, two years after the notification [...] unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period

suggests exactly what Kerr expects in his second quote: The remaining states would have to decide, unanimously, that they're happy with granting an extension (...to the exit negotiation period). Assuming only a single member state disagrees, bad luck, the lights just go out end of March.
Of course, UK could, following Brexit, apply again to become a member state according to Article 49. Indeed, Article 50 explicitly states that. However, this obviously wouldn't just work, it would be subject to fulfilling all of the basic conditions, plus some. Also it would be subject to member states agreeing. Surely, member states would expect to get "paid" (one way or the other) for the economic damages they've had from the uncertainity caused by Brexit, it seems unlikely they'd just shrug and move on.

tl;dr

So, considering that a second referendum and attempting a full U-turn half a year before Day X would be most devastating in terms of credibility (both internally and externally), but also stopping the Brexit does not seem to be possible at all ("extension" does not mean the same as "reversal"), what would be the point in holding such a referendum in the first place?

In my opinion, at this point in time, it can only make things worse, not better.

Answer 1

The initial Brexit referendum was flawed from the Leave-Campaign operating with false numbers and flat-out misinformation, e.g. the 350 million pounds for the NHS.

As the referendum concluded with a narrow win for the Leave side, there was/is no clear strategy on how to leave the EU, i.e. soft vs. hard Brexit. Theresa May's "Brexit means Brexit" is somewhat telling.

Thus, after the UK government negotiates with the EU on the conditions for leaving, the people finally learn what Brexit really means, apart from meaning Brexit.

So the point of a second referendum would be:

• redress the flaw of the Leave Campaign winning by lies
• let the population vote on an actual proposal, in contrast to the first referendum, which was on "Imagine your own, ideal Brexit"^TM

---

IMO, the first point is the most pertinent, since no democracy can afford to let the people's trust in the validity of elections erode. If, there are cases of actual voting fraud, an election is very likely to be invalidated with the need to repeat the election. If, on the other hand, a campaign is caught blatantly lying, there should be similar repercussions.

When a campaign is able to win an election with lies, and afterwards fights a repetition of that very election by arguing that the repetition would undermine democracy. Then, the democracy, or the people's trust in democracy, takes damage.

Answer 2

The EU and some individual member states have gone on record saying that Article 50 can be revoked. The author of Article 50 agrees (and he is British). So it can be stopped.

Even if stopping were not an option, there are other things that could be voted on.

• Should whatever deal is done be accepted?
• If not, should the government have to try to re-negotiate or just leave with no deal?
• Stay in the Single Market and Customs Union (like Norway)
• Join EFTA
• Even if cancelling Article 50 is impossible, re-apply for membership during the transition period

Answer 3

The answer depends on your point of view.

If you want to Leave, there is no point in a second vote.

If you want to Remain, the point is that you might win the second time.

If you think this is overly cynical, look at the evidence. It's possible I've missed something, but I haven't seen a single Leave advocate who has argued for a second vote. And I know that before the first vote a lot of Remainers said the vote would be the first and only one. But I haven't seen any recent examples of a Remain advocate arguing forcefully against another vote.

Answer 4

From outside UK I believe that there are three possible outcomes of the Brexit process that could be asked about in a poll:

1) remain 2) leave without deal 3) accept the deal as it stands

The parliament and government seems to be hung between 2) and 3), so the democratic question would be to select between these two. The decision to leave has already been voted on, now it is only about the details.

But politics is not always ( or possibly seldom ) about logics.

Answer 5

I suppose if it is suspected that Russia influenced public opinion on Brexit, and they realize they've been deceived, then it might be better for the health of the UK and the EU to change their minds than to say "whelp, you tricked us, but I guess we have to follow through with the consequences of being tricked."

Articles suggesting a Russian propaganda involvement related to Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/why-isnt-there-greater-outrage-about-russian-involvement-in-brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/04/uk/uk-brexit-russia-links-arron-banks-intl/index.html

Support in the UK for Brexit has deteriorated since the initial vote, which I'd suspect correlates with increased knowledge of Russian interference, as well as the public becoming better-informed about the consequences of Brexit. A recent poll suggests that 54% of UK citizens want to remain in the EU and 46% want to exit. At the time of this article from May 2018, the results of 14 consecutive YouGov polls all reflected a preference to remain rather than exit.

Also, I believe the Brexit referendum was not precisely legally-binding. Although, it's complicated.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-european-union-eu27-withdrawal-bill-8-december-is-it-binding-a8105936.html

Answer 6

A second EU referendum asks the same question as the first: Do you want to come out of the EU, A populist question which encourages a 50/50 result, by it's vague, nebulous, popular connotation.

A second referendum is therefore an exotic and somewhat illogical political process. It voids/reverses the result and the authenticity of the first referendum using the same question, some years later.

The point of promising another referendum shortly after the first, is a politician's election tool, to cater for foreign pressures that are opposed to the results of the first referendum, and obey international diplomatic pressure to reverse the result of the first referendum. The previous EEC / EU referendums of 1975 and 2016 were also election promises. The 2021 election promise is also a pledge by the opposing party leader.

Suppose that constitutional rights were subject to a referendum, and the referendum required 3 years to pass into law, and resulted in international diplomatic pressure and revenge policies against the nation that had the referendum, like trade wars, import export bans, travel restrictions...

Then, sufficient foreign diplomatic pressure would have been exerted on the nation that had voted in the referendum, so that a politician who accepted the referendum, decides that he has changed his mind, and wishes to negate the first referendum and to organize a second one.