[tristanperry]

For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.:

* Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002

* Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - first 1992 then 1993

* Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009

There was also a case where the Labour government (in the UK) promised a referendum on a couple of EU treaty changes, before changing their mind after other countries' referendums voted them down, and just ratified it in parliament instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Consti...

[feintruled]

The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for.

(I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).

[KSteffensen]

Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics.

https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts

[NeedMoreTea]

Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote.

The timeline could have been:

Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little.

Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin.

Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements.

Second referendum, this time for remain.

UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.

[tristanperry]

Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that.

Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.

[NeedMoreTea]

No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else.

So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information.

What a mess.

[cgiles]

I have found the best source of information about Brexit, although it certainly has its own bias, to be eureferendum.com . They have long advocated for Efta/EEA membership as the first move for the UK before gradually disentangling from EU directives.

IMV (I'm not British) the only sane option was some form of soft Brexit. Which was the only way to avoid most of the economic damage and also prevent hordes of Leavers with pitchforks. But the damage was done at Lancaster House which made immigration a red line. Theresa May concluded that Leavers wouldn't consider anything without immigration control to be a real Brexit, thus implicitly agreeing with the idea that the referendum passed because of immigration.

And now you have a neverending shitshow as a result. So I mostly agree, but there was a window of opportunity for TM to sell a soft Brexit. She opted not to.

[NeedMoreTea]

See this is where it gets truly silly. You may not be wrong about some form of soft-Brexit, or EEA status, but whichever level of closeness you consider that is not "hard Brexit" would have required dropping one of the UK's "red line" issues. Anything else that was not Theresa May's deal needed the EU offering cake and cookies for free. It wasn't so much she couldn't sell it as the hardliners of the Tory party wouldn't take it. For 3 years the UK's negotiating position has been "la, la, la, not listening", whilst asking for the impossible (or cake).

Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator summarised it all beautifully in a single slide he put out in about 2016 or 17. Each level of softer Brexit available is ruled out by a UK red line.

Should you want a breakdown, CGP Grey did a short video about "that slide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

[cgiles]

Yes, I've seen that slide. In fact, it was exactly what I had in mind when I said to pytester below that "Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are". Certainly you are right about what has been the Tory negotiating strategy.

I meant, however, that she could have attempted to sell it to the hardliners in her party or, more likely, cross-party as described below. None of the red lines were inevitable, because no one knows why Leave won. Some say immigration, some say sovereignty, ECJ, payments that could "fund our NHS", and myriad other things. Some in Labour are even said to have supported it to get around state aid rules.

So there was a fundamental lack of clarity what the referendum had actually meant shortly after it passed. That was TM's window of opportunity to show some leadership and choose an interpretation of the referendum that could command majority support.

If she had presented a soft Brexit agreement to the house, yes, she would have thrown the DUP and ERG under the bus, but she also would have put Labour, LD, etc into an extremely difficult position. At the time, they all said "we should respect the referendum". If they had rejected a soft WA the blame would be all on them instead of, as it is now, on the Tories. She would have faced accusations of being a closet Remainer, but she got that anyway.

I am convinced everyone hates the DUP and very few like the ERG. Instead of tossing them, the Tories toss Ken Clarke and Nick Soames? Sounds like a bad plan.

[pjc50]

I don't think a renegotiation after the referendum could possibly have achieved anything. Discourse about the EU in the UK is not based on facts. The EU would never have given compromises on freedom of movement, or the single market, and there wasn't anything else specific that people were asking for.

[NeedMoreTea]

It may not have achieved much at all, certainly nothing on freedom of movement, but like previous treaties he could have come back with something.

With a negotiating stance of "they just voted out, what can we give to avoid this?", I am sure some package that didn't compromise the aims of the EU too far, or cost billions, could have been worked out.

Now, whether a second referendum would have swung back to remain, now I'm clueless. :)

[growlist]

UK economy at least seems in rude health overall, so reputational damage doesn't seem to have affected business.

[stordoff]

> Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009

It wasn't just a straight re-vote through. Selected reasons for voting no, according to The Times (bearing in mind it was only 53:47 to no):

> Protect neutrality - 10%

> Keep commissioner - 10%

> Protect tax system - 8%

And according to Gallop (for the European Commission):

> To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters - 6%

> We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission - 6%

> To protect our tax system - 6%

> It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia - 2%

Consequently, The European Council agreed that:

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon made any change of any kind to the Union's competences on taxation for any member state;

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that the Treaty of Lisbon did not prejudice the security and defence policy of any member state, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality;

> the necessary legal guarantees would be given that neither the Treaty of Lisbon (including the Justice and Home Affairs provisions), nor the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, affected the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family in any way;

> in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, a Decision would be taken to retain Ireland's Commissioner, provided that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified;

> the high importance attached to issues including workers' rights would be confirmed.