Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
It wasn't informed as the leave deal was not done and various leave politicians offered contradictory messages eg still staying in EEA, not staying in the EEA.
The UK Government should have negotiated with the EU without the disadvantageous time pressure of Article 50 which favours the hand of the EU then offered the country the two choices.
|
This is nonsense on stilts.
If the exit deal is deliberately designed to inform the referendum debate, then the only incentive is for the exit deal to be bad, in order to influence the result to remain.
The only way to fairly hold the referendum was the way it was actually held: without a deal on the table, so the argument could be settled on points of principle and a long-term view of where the U.K. sees itself in the world, not on the grubby details of any political deal.
That, also, is why *there*will*not*be*a*second*referendum* - the debate was held, and the vote was cast, *without* being unduly influenced by a political circus that, 20 years from now, will have thoroughly faded from memory.