It seems there is growing support for a public vote on the final deal. The campaign for a "people's vote" is probably pushing at an opening door as the politicians begin to talk of stockpiling food and medicine and planning for social unrest. The technical notes to be issued later this month will set out more details of preparations that businesses and individuals should take in the event of a no deal Brexit. These are unlikely to calm frayed nerves and will almost certainly add to the sense of chaos.
With that in mind there are two articles discussing what the format might be. Steve Richards in The Guardian (HERE) thinks to avoid upsetting the Brexiteers and respecting the outcome of the 2016 referendum, there should be just two options - leave without a deal or accept whatever Mrs May can negotiate, however soft a Brexit that is. He thinks this would give the PM a lot of power to negotiate a very close relationship with the EU, and he may be right.
The Economist sees it differently (HERE) and wants a "remain in the EU" option to be on the ballot paper. But setting out clearly why Brexiteers will never, ever accept this, the article cites their own YouGov poll asking about a second referendum and giving the people surveyed three choices and three different voting methods, and remain won each time.
The voting options were:
First past the post - whichever got most support would win
Alternative vote - second choices taken into account
Borda vote - The choices scored 3, 2, and 1 point and the total added up
This is their graphic:
The Brexiteers will do their utmost to stop a second referendum because they know what the result will be. Which is a good reason for us to press for one.
