Yes, that’s now. Before, he was saying exactly what the die-hard Bremainers were saying “If leave loses 52:48 I will keep demanding a second referendum”
He’s not “evolving” - he’s denying his opponents the same tactic he promised if he lost by the same margin.
A 2nd referendum on the type of Brexit would make sense IF the options are clearly posted out:
1. No deal Brexit - the UK trades with the EU on WTO terms, has a hard border in Ireland (As demanded by the WTO rules and per leavers view)
2. The UK has the Norway/Switzerland-type post-Brexit relationship (Theresa May’s deal) with the entire UK in a customs union with the EU, paying into the EU dues, following EU rules and no decision making powers
3. Only NI goes into a customs union with the EU, the rest of the UK goes into option 1 - WTO rules trading with the EU.This means a border in the Irish sea
4. Cancel Article 50 - no Brexit.
It needs to be put explicitly what are the options
AND the rules for “winning” need to be made explicit - is it the option with >50% of the votes win or the one with the simple majority? Either way, option 4 would win - to cancel Brexit.
So then perhaps a two step question
Q1. Continue with Brexit? Yes/ No
Answer below only if you choose Yes
Q2. What type of Brexit do you choose?
1. No deal Brexit - the UK trades with the EU on WTO terms, has a hard border in Ireland (As demanded by the WTO rules and per leavers view)
2. The UK has the Norway/Switzerland-type post-Brexit relationship (Theresa May’s deal) with the entire UK in a customs union with the EU, paying into the EU dues, following EU rules and no decision making powers
3. Only NI goes into a customs union with the EU, the rest of the UK goes into option 1 - WTO rules trading with the EU.This means a border in the Irish sea
And here again - is it simple majority? or what?
A referendum needs to be explicitly detailed on such a complex matter - it’s not a simple “leave/remain” and never was - its “what type of leave or remain”
Q1 - stay or leave- is redundant with the 2016 referendum, and therefore moot under the principle of stare decisis.
The only question remaining is how to leave. Re asking the question invites accusations of insincerity in the first effort and in any following efforts. This imho is fairly transparent to any dispassionate observer.
I sense that it is politically difficult to the deep state to ask the other questions because it implies accepting that the first question is settled (which it is by any ordinary sense of th word). So a second referendum probably wont happen either.
This leaves as an option a festering political sore of indeterminate length, which again undermines deep state political manipulation. Alternatively, there is always the wag the dog gambit...
To have a legitimate second referendum you need to implement the first one first.