This was always going to be the issue with another referendum: fundamental disagreement about explicit and implicit purpose of the exercise
1/
1/
Part of success of #PeoplesVote agt was saying that it was about democracy/legitimacy of the outcome
Fine, but subtext of reopening #EUref was always going to be there
2/
Fine, but subtext of reopening #EUref was always going to be there
2/
Thus two different things:
- getting buy-in to terms of WA/PD
- getting revocation back on the table
Two rather different audiences, and requiring two different sets of Qs in vote, so unavoidable unwinding
3/
- getting buy-in to terms of WA/PD
- getting revocation back on the table
Two rather different audiences, and requiring two different sets of Qs in vote, so unavoidable unwinding
3/
NB both things are legitimate exercises, but it's not practical to pretend they're the same thing (not least in defending against critics)
4/
4/
If this doesn't get resolved then largely doesn't matter whether LAB decide to support 'it', because 'it' won't be clear
5/
5/
(of course, could argue that's why LAB leadership might go for a version of 'it': to soak up all those who imprint their own desires onto 'it', much as was seen in #GE17)
6/
6/
Generally though, still much road to travel on unpacking purpose of a second vote, let alone making it actually happen
/end
/end
