Thread by @tony_nog

1) the #Brexit 2nd ref, a possible solution to the options

As momentum builds for a #PeoplesVote there's some concern that the Leave side will pull the same tricks they pulled first time around

What if we could ensure fair, or at least fairer, play by all sides?
Here's 1 option

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1074096754725924864

2) there's 2 distinct characteristics of the Leave campaign, 1 of which was arguably unique.

The first was that the offer from Vote Leave was fluid & vague. It would move from "we'll stay in the SM" to "we'll get access" to "the SM doesn't matter" and back

3) the second characteristic was even more unusual. The Vote Leave campaign, perhaps for the first time in UK history, made promises & took positions based on what a 3rd party, outside the UK, would do

Essentially Leave made promises concerning the EU they had no control over

4) in other referendums we knew what each option looked like, or at least we had some control over the outcome

Scottish independence for example did not depend on some other country agreeing to it, or being bullied into agreeing

5) in hindsight its ludicrous to have a referendum where one side says "the basis of our offer is that we can force 27 countries into giving us a deal"

That's not a choice anyone can make a decision on, but it's what Vote Leave offered

6) so where's this going? Simply this - any option on the 2nd ref should satisfy 2 criteria
a) it should be a clear position, with outcomes defined and impacts analysed - it must have a plan, a particular set of coherent options

7 b) it must not depend on any new negotiations of any kind with the EU but only on things already agreed

8) what do I mean in practice?
Well Remain and May's deal are definable, with known outcomes and come with agreement from the EU. We know what they are and that they are possible. The same is needed for clean/hard/WTO/no deal/managed no deal Brexit

They can't all be on the vote

9) instead of posturing and moving between various "proper Brexits", much as they did around SM membership 1st time around, the hard leavers must be told they need to agree on one form of hard Brexit, and then *write it down* in detail for voters to examine.

10) but more importantly that option cannot really on the EU behaving in a certain way & or on them caving & giving us exactly what we want.

For a valid vote at this stage the hard leave option must rely on existing EU agreements, not new negotiations or fresh EU concessions

11) so, as an example, the hard leavers must not offer managed no deal, because its still a deal & requires new negotiations with the EU
We cannot predict how the EU will respond to those negotiations so it cannot be put on the ballot paper

12) similarly they cannot claim that we can use the threat of no deal to force the EU to capitulate because we have no idea how the EU will react beyond what they have already said, so the claim has no substance

13) the route therefore to a fair referendum is simple. Hard leavers must pick one "no deal" option and document it and its accompanying plan.

Its outcomes must be clearly described and they must not rely on us pushing the EU to react in certain ways

14) if Hard Leavers believe in their approach they should be able to pick one favourite variation and detail exactly what it means and how it will cope with issues arising on haulage, medicines, trade etc, with an independent financial impact analysis

15) if of course they can't do this, if "no deal" actually means "another attempt to push the EU into a deal", if they instead hide behind managed no deal, WTO + deal, world trade deal rather than laying out just one option in detail...

16) if in short the hard brexiters cannot pick one coherent position, which relies only on our actions not those of others to be effective

Then theyre not serious individuals and their option shouldnt be on the ballot paper
End/