"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul
2016, Martin Coffee remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.

Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for
choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the
favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by
a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and
the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won.

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to
seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the
preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

tim