Now there is chatter in the UK for re-doing the referendum on leaving the EU

[DFW]

I realize it's not my place to be giving the people of the UK advice, but as we say in the south (and I'm actually in Dallas for a couple of days, for once),

"If it ain't broke, don't Brexit!" *

* OK, that's not how we REALLY say it, but with our accent, they won't be able to tell the difference.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I wondered if they might have second thoughts!

It would be messy, though, wouldn't it?

[LanternWaste]

2. Is there a mechanism in place for a legitimate re-vote?

Is there a mechanism in place for a legitimate re-vote? I honestly don't know.

[regnaD kciN]

6. If Parliament authorizes it, a referendum can be held any time...

However, that isn't the problem. Brits can re-vote any number of times. They can vote against Brexit any number of times. But Article 50 has already been triggered. Once that happens, there are two possible outcomes:

1) Britain works out a negotiated deal with the EU, and leaves the EU with future ties as agreed to in the deal.
2) Two years after Article 50, if a negotiated deal hasn't been worked out, Britain automatically leaves the EU under WTO rules.

Those are the two alternatives. Once Article 50 was invoked, Britain was leaving the EU either way. Basically, if there's no deal, the EU automatically kicks them out. And it doesn't matter if, in the interim, the British have held another referendum and decided they wanted to remain part of the EU. That no longer has any effect in the process.

The only way, at this point, that Great Britain can return to the EU is if they apply for readmission. And that would take unanimous consent from all 27 remaining member countries. There is little doubt that some of those countries, already annoyed that Britain received special treatment in the past in order to be a member, would insist that they agree to every EU condition (such as ditching the Pound for the Euro, and agreeing to the "Schengen area" terms for free movement without border checks). Even then, the odds that at least one of the 27 (say, Bulgaria, or Cyprus, or Malta) would veto it just because they could is pretty high. And it only takes one veto to deny readmission.

So, no matter what happens with any potential second referendum, Britain will be out of the EU, almost certainly for good, by early 2019. The only question now is how bad an economic hit they will take.

[DFW]

9. Are you sure about joining the Euro being obligatory?

After all, Sweden and Norway, as well as some of the Eastern countries (e.g. RO, CZ, PL, BG, HR) have kept their own national currencies.

As for re-admitting the UK, as it was a safety valve for their unemployed, I'm sure none of the eastern countries would raise the slightest objection. It's the west, particularly NL, S, DK, that I would be worried about. They are nowhere nearly as economically beholden to the west's contributions as are the countries of Eastern Europe.

[Pope George Ringo II]

12. I'm not sure that's entirely true about Britain not being able to revoke the invocation.

Apparently opinions vary on putting the Article 50 genie back in the bottle, and it might go to court to settle it as a legal question as anybody being so fickle about being so stupid is virgin ground nobody foresaw. There's also the question of what the EU and UK decided would be politically expedient. Either way, it seems the EU is leaving the door open, whether for the sake of legality, appearances, or just for being good neighbors.

But I'd agree that any potential readmission is going to be less generous and that we're really just trying to figure out how much damage Brexit does.

[Denzil_DC]

13. No. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you claim.

Brexit: Secret legal advice on whether Article 50 can be revoked could be revealed in Commons vote
Theresa May has been accused of suppressing advice that the Article 50 notification can be withdrawn - even without Brussels’ agreement

Secret legal advice which is believed to say that Brexit can be stopped unilaterally by Britain could be revealed, if a Commons vote is won next month.

Theresa May has been accused of suppressing a formal opinion that the Article 50 notification can be withdrawn, even without Brussels’ agreement.

Now two pro-EU MPs have tabled an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill which, if passed, would force the Prime Minister to publish a summary of that advice, they say.

... a prominent QC said “two good sources” had told her that the Prime Minister has been advised that the exit notice can be reversed, if MPs judge that to be the best course.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-revoked-theresa-may-secret-legal-advice-commons-vote-mps-eu-withdrawal-bill-latest-a8122626.html

Here's an opinion from last November from the guy who actually drafted Article 50:

Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 author

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May should stop misleading voters and admit that Brexit can be avoided if Britain decides unilaterally to scrap divorce talks, the man who drafted Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty said on Friday.

“While the divorce talks proceed, the parties are still married. Reconciliation is still possible,” John Kerr, British ambassador to the EU from 1990 to 1995, said in a speech in London.

“We can change our minds at any stage during the process,” said Kerr, who added that the legalities of Article 50 had been misrepresented in Britain. “The British people have the right to know this: they shouldn’t be misled.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article50/brexit-never-britain-can-still-change-its-mind-says-article-50-author-idUKKBN1D93BI

The only things preventing calling another referendum (the first was officially merely advisory) and revoking Article 50 are hubris and political cowardice.

The longer this travesty continues, the greater the losses in terms of the UK's economic welfare and standing in the world. It's not as if any serious attempts have been made by the government to prepare for Brexit even at this late stage.

[OnDoutside]

7. There's nothing stopping them from doing a re-vote. The problem is in doing so might actually get

the back up of the British people, if they feel they are being forced to vote a second time. I've been saying since the morning after the Brexit vote that I don't know HOW they are going to engineer it but they will have a re-vote. May lost a vote before Christmas that basically forces her to put whatever the final EU-UK deal is, to a vote in Westminster. That was an important step imo.

What I hope happens (and I believe it will) is that before that deal is voted on in Parliament (or is voted on and defeated), May will have little choice but to say to the British people, "You voted to leave the EU without knowing the final deal. Is this what you really wanted ?"

I think the deal the UK will get is essentially having everything they currently have, except no representation within the EU i.e. No MEPs, No Commissioners, No Prime Minister in EU Summits.

[Pope George Ringo II]

3. I'm hoping for this more than expecting it

May is sticking to the line that doing it would encourage the EU to stick it to the UK, Corbyn isn't really pushing for it despite Labour's grassroot's loving the idea, and the only reason Farage is even talking about it is so he can get publicity.

The second referendum needs to be done and Brexit averted, but I can't bet on it.

[Cha]

4. What I read.. the UK had second thoughts the next day

[Irish_Dem]

5. Wish we could have a re-do of a certain election here in the US. nt

[DFW]

8. Preferably with UN oversight!

I do NOT trust the current federal government to provide objective oversight.

[Irish_Dem]

10. Yep. We don't have adequate oversight.

Voting results are questionable.

[yallerdawg]

11. In a representative form of government (Parliament)...

if the majority of the representative's constituents, and then a majority of representatives want a revote, then that's what they should do.

That is democracy.