Hi

I am a NZer listening online. I am actually a British citizen by birth.

I hear a lot of talk of a "people's vote" or second referendum because many people were uninformed/misinformed at the time of the 2016 Referendum. If that was true then, then it is likely true still. People are certainly still open to coercion by "propaganda".

IF that is true then "important decisions" should not be decided by referendum (in the future). Certainly another Brexit referendum seems ill advised now.

Regards
xxxxxx

PRESS RELEASE
(Embargoed until 11:00 pm GMT 29th March, 2019)

FROM: British Citizens
TO: The EU

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Most referendums offer voters a binary choice between two options. In the case of Brexit, there are at least three possible outcomes:

Theresa May’s deal, Brexit with no deal, or remaining in the EU after all.

A second referendum could in principle be held as a straight choice between two of these options: for instance Deal vs No Deal, or Deal vs Remain. In this case, whichever option won more votes would be implemented. This approach would naturally be opposed by those who support the third, excluded option.

If a referendum were held that includes all three options then there are different ways to determine the result. The simplest approach would be to allow each voter to vote for their favoured option, with the most popular choice declared the victor. This could lead, however, to an option being implemented without support of a majority of voters.

To avoid this, voters could rank their choices in order of preference. The least popular first choice would be eliminated, and its votes reallocated based on second preferences. This would ensure that the successful option gained over 50% of first and second preferences.

Finally, the referendum could include two separate questions. Question 1 could ask whether voters wish to Leave or Remain, as in 2016. Question 2 could ask voters to select between the two different models of Brexit, if there is still a pro-Leave majority.