Let us consider two views of the referendum outcome on 23rd June ;
- the people have decided to leave the European Union regardless of the terms agreed
- the people have decided only that they wish to leave, but have expressed no view on the terms of Brexit and therefore need a second referendum to permit this.
Those most avidly in favour of Brexit fear that a second referendum could yet undermine their triumph of June 23rd; from this perspective, a second referendum is nothing more than a devious manoeuvre by the establishment and the “remoaners” to subvert democracy and the will of the people.
Yet a second referendum could be organised in such a way as to meet the objections of all but the most partisan supporters on whichever side of the argument were to be favoured. And let me be clear: this proposal would include the option to remain within the European Union.
Before explaining let me first declare my own prejudices on the matter; I voted to remain; however, I have respect for many of those who voted for Brexit and and I am certainly not without hope for a prosperous future for the UK, outside Europe, whether the Brexit be a hard one or a soft one. So let me explain how a multiple choice referendum might work.
The Referendum Ballot paper would include at least three options
- Leave the EU on the terms negotiated by the Government
- Leave the EU without any deal
- Remain within the EU
Citizens of the UK would be invited to number the options in order of preference.
Actually, such a ballot paper might permit the Government to negotiate a number of options for Brexit, all of which could appear on the Ballot paper. The British people, we are often told, are both intelligent and know what they want; in that case, a little additional complexity should not be a problem. Those unwilling or unable to contemplate any second choice, should be permitted to mark the paper with an X in the traditional manner.
Should any one of these options receive a clear majority of first preferences [plus Xs] the outcome would then be decided.
If none of the options were to gain a majority of first preferences, then the option with least support would be discarded and second preferences redistributed to produce a final outcome. [Obviously, if there are more options on the ballot paper, then consideration of third preferences might become necessary.]
The outcome would be clearly democratic, and only the unhinged on either side of the argument would be liable to object to this process.
Such a process can only be adopted if there is a clear desire for it, so if you think the idea has merit, why not pass it on? Let’s go viral.
Carruchan 
What really happened in Sweden last night…
More or Less, [ Radio 4 and the BBC World Service] routinely challenges the interpretation and conclusions drawn from the data circulating in the news. It is a programme which succeeds in making statistics interesting, even amusing. This week’s edition was a particular gem. It explores Donald Trump’s perplexing reference to “what had happened in Sweden last night” and convincingly suggests that it arose from a Fox News documentary which he had had been watching, where the presenter asserts that “rape has sky rocketed in Sweden over the last 5 years.” The presenter then associates this assertion with an influx of Islamic migrants over the same period. As it happens, the source of the Fox News programme was an article written by none other than this weeks More or Less presenter, Ruth Alexander. Ms Alexander makes it clear that the data as reported by Fox News had been stood on its head – but there’s more; this nine minute programme is a beautiful deconstruction of Trump’s message showing it to be based on a criminally flawed presentation of the facts The finely balanced conclusion of Ruth Alexander and the More or Less team, as regards what may or may not be considered fake news, is unexpected and an example of an ethical standard which sadly, is hard to discern in the man who has so publicly announced that he will “drain the swamp.”