Thread by @uk_domain_names

The 2016 referendum was fatally flawed because "Leave" encompassed a range of outcomes as wide as the ocean. Like asking: "Shall we stay at home, or do something?" "Do something" won. And that's when the fights started. Because it is only possible to 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 bring me a DeLorean, so I can crank it up to 88mph!"

In the raw fury of debate, many forgot – genuinely, or as a matter of convenience – that the really out-there ideas had never been on offer during the referendum. Nobody had promised a lunar voyage. Nobody had said we could walk with dinosaurs.

The scenarios 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 closed in on the centre, and subsumed it. This rapid radicalisation created an atmosphere in which sensible options are derided as unworthy of consideration. A hard Brexit is the only true Brexit. If it won't scratch diamond, we don't want it.

If that wasn’t bad enough, something else happened in parallel. As the demands grew ever more fanciful, those who had chosen to stay in asked, not unreasonably, how those who had voted to go out intended to turn the outcome of the vote into a workable 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. An ex-democracy, like the parrot sketch."

"But Harry Potter is fiction."
"I want to dialogue 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 those who wanted us to go out supported a myriad of positions. They never came remotely close to coalescing around just one.

But that's fake news, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Not because it's factually incorrect. Who are you kidding? That's so last year. Get with the times. Now, "fake news" means "anything I find it inconvenient or difficult to argue against".

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 has to be between two logical, clear options. The going out option must be agreed before the referendum. It must be achievable, and acceptable to the EU. Not "Staying in or Going Out", but "Staying in or Watching Avengers: Endgame" or "Staying in or Visiting Alton Towers."

If people vote to stay in, we will know what that means. If they vote to go out, well, we will know what that means too. A blockbuster with popcorn, or a roller-coaster ride, exactly as promised. Everyone ends up not *too* unhappy, and some very pleased.

But if referendum 2 is a mere rehash of referendum 1, it will leave us just as muddled as we are now. The conflicts are bound to continue, even intensify. What would be the point of that?

We made a big mistake once. Let’s own up to it and fix things, rather than making it all over again. =END=

This thread "Thoughts on a second referendum" is also available as a PDF from the link below. Please RT and share if you found it interesting. Thanks.
drive.google.com/file/d/1Bry67J…