Thread by @JonathanArnott

If an Act of Parliament were passed TODAY for a 'second referendum', the minimum legal timescale would put polling day after Brexit Day on March 29th.

That's instant legislation, if Parliament wanted something it doesn't, and told the Electoral Commission to get lost. (thread)

Think this through for a moment. The timelines here are actually important. The government saying 'a referendum would take over year' is a stretch: yes, the 2016 referendum took 13 months to organise. It could be done quicker but still the same fundamental problem exists...

The absolute legal minimum under the law (PPERA) is 10 weeks from the passage of legislation. That means ignoring the Electoral Commission's advice of 6 months. It also means the question needs to have been fully agreed, tested, etc. No consultation would mean legal challenges.

We're less than 10 weeks from Brexit, so the argument is 'let's extend Article 50 to do it'. This really doesn't chime with reality either. The EU cares about May's European elections. I know we don't, but they do. And how they'll act depends on the things that *they* care about.

Brexit means reallocating seats in the other 27 countries. Another referendum means 27 nations fighting elections without knowing how many seats they're fighting for. The EU would quite like the UK to stay, but they don't want to mess up their entire election. It gets worse...

Because the Commission isn't elected, the (new) EP will only accept a Commission President from the pan-EU group which does best at the election. The UK currently has 0 seats from the biggest group, and 20 from the second-biggest. There's a Brexit problem for EU extending A50...

The choice of 'who runs Europe' may be different depending on whether the UK has left the EU already or not. Like I said, Brits rarely care about such things. Most voters across the EU probably don't. But the politicians and Eurocrats really do care. The new EP meets on July 2nd.

Extending Brexit till July or later means more European elections in the UK. It's ridiculous as a concept anyway, to elect those who will be sacked in a month, but from the EU's perspective they'd rather the UK go than mess up their own entire system of government.

The EU would agree to a referendum-extension till (maybe) the end of June, but only if the entire thing could be done and dusted either way by then. Including new European elections for the UK in the event of Remain. Realistically that means polling day a max 14-15 weeks from now

There's no current majority in Parliament for a second referendum.

Parliament won't vote again until around 29/30 January to express an opinion.

Suppose it changed its mind then and wanted a second referendum. It would need government backing, which it doesn't have.

It would then need to agree the Article 50 extension and amend the EU Withdrawal Act. It would need to draft new referendum legislation and send it back and forth between Lords and Commons repeatedly. It would need to consult on the question, and negotiate with the EU.

In a deeply divided Parliament, without government support, how could this possibly happen in time? Even with government support, they'd still be out of time: we're talking roughly the end of February in the most plain-sailing scenario.

In practice, this would entail changing government too: add 2 weeks for one without an election, or 5-7 for an election on that basis. All of this has to be done before the 10-week legal minimum campaign period can begin. Don't forget, this *should be* 6 months!

The second referendum is dead in the water. There is no time whatsoever for it. An extension of Article 50 does not help at all.

Those calling for a second referendum aren't all stupid. They know they're out of time. So why call for something they know is impossible? Because...

1. For some, it's a temper tantrum: they're shouting because they don't know what else to do.

2. Others use it as a bait-and-switch: they'll soon shift to arguing for Remain without a referendum.

3. Inertia - it's difficult to stop campaigning, even though they know it's lost.

Bottom line: unless the UK plans to stay in the EU in limbo for years, 'extending Article 50' wouldn't change the fact: there's no time for a second referendum.

The fact we're even discussing it shows how detached from reality things are becoming.

(End of thread)