Thread by @uk_domain_names

THOUGHTS ON A SECOND REFERENDUM
The gaping flaw with the 2016 Brexit referendum was that nobody knew what they would be getting if Leave won. Not in a straightforward, well-defined way. "Leave" encompassed a range of outcomes as wide as the ocean.

It was like asking: "Shall we stay at home, or do something?" Well, "do something" won. And that's when the fights started. Because we can only do *one* thing.

Some wanted to go for a meal, others to hang around down the pub, catch a film, go to the zoo, visit Disneyland. Discordant voices started drowning out those making realistic suggestions. Why don't we ride a rocket to the moon? I want to travel back in time! Who's for Hogwarts?

Ever since the vote, the mood has swung towards ever wilder plans. "A meal? The pub? A film? The zoo? Give me a break! Those aren't 'doing something'. They're basically the same as staying in. Now fetch me the DeLorean, so I can crank it up to 88mph!"

In the raw fury of the debate, many have forgotten – or conveniently chosen to forget – that the really out-there ideas were never on offer. Nobody promised a lunar voyage during the referendum. Nobody said we would walk with dinosaurs.

The examples outlined by both camps had been relatively simple, achievable, budget-friendly options. Only the fringe elements, far from the main thrust of the debate, had advocated things right out of science fiction and fantasy.

But then the fringe crept into the centre, subsumed it. And today we face a situation where every vaguely sensible option is derided as not even worth contemplating. The only possible choice is hard Brexit, the harder the better. If it won't scratch diamond, we don't want it.

On the face of it, bad enough. But another thing happened. As the ideas grew ever more fanciful, those who chose to stay in asked, not unreasonably, how those who had wanted to go out intended to implement their plan.

"Our plan? How can it be our plan? You're supposed to organise it. After all, you gave us the initial choice."
"But we never suggested space trav-"
"Are you trying to deny us? Because that would kill democracy stone dead. Have you seen the parrot sketch? It's an ex-democracy."

"But Harry Potter is fiction."
"I want to walk with Dumbledore. Play Quiddich. Name He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named."
"That's just not poss-"
"Hey, everyone! Come see our rights being oppressed! We won, now they're trying to take it away from us."

And so on and so forth, ad nauseam and beyond. But that wasn't all. The loudest voices professed to be absolutely cast-iron certain that they knew what everyone wanted. "We all chose time travel" (Meaning: "I chose time travel, and I want it very very much.")

We have thousands of hours of video, and countless millions of words proving that, no, actually, those who wanted to go out *didn't* all speak with one voice.

But that's fake news, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Not because it's factually incorrect. Who are you kidding? That's last year's definition of “fake news”. Get with the times. Now, it means "anything I find it inconvenient to argue against, for any reason or none".

And so we come to the present. We are more stuck than a tube of super-glue. Politicians generally want to implement the result, but the only options being suggested are unrealistic, damaging or impossible to fulfil.

One way of breaking the impasse could be a second referendum. But it would be inviting yet greater calamity if it were to be as ill-defined as the first. We may be stupid, but we should never be *that* stupid. Not if we can help it.

No, it must be between two clear, distinct options. Not "Staying in or Going Out", but "Staying in or Watching Avengers: Endgame" or "Staying in or Visiting Alton Towers." The going out option must be agreed before the referendum. It must be achievable, and acceptable to the EU.

If people vote to stay in, we know what that means. If they vote to go out, we also know what that means. We get our blockbuster or our roller-coaster ride, exactly as was promised. Everyone is not too unhappy, and some are very pleased.

But if referendum 2 is just a repeat of referendum 1, leaving us with nothing solved and everything to battle over, what's the point. Quite frankly, none at all. We made a mistake once. Let’s learn from it rather than repeating it again. END

This thread is also available as a PDF from the link below. Please share it and retweet it if you found it interesting. Thank you.
drive.google.com/file/d/1LQ7eLV…