So, am I right in thinking that everyone on here who wants a second referendum doesn't actually agree with referendums anyway, as the result can be overturned by a another..........and another..........etc etc?
Therefore, what's the point in ever having one?
Well, it was advisory, so it holds no legal obligation, despite Theresa May's keenness to describe a difference of less that 2% justification to claim it was the 'will of the people' - a concept that is laughably naive if you claim it to be unchanging and something that should stand in perpetuity.
OnAnd if you do believe that... then the vote to join the EU was equally 'the will of the people' - should that not stand as finite and unquestioned? Clearly a flawed argument don't you think?
Interestingly, in the period between the 2010 and 2015 elections a surprising percentage of the electorate were swing voters according to the BES - http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/how-were-almost-all-swingers-now/
Out of the something like 44m registered voters that amounted to potentially 11m (clearly not accounting for those that don't vote) that are undecided enough in their party politics to change from one to another side of the political divide every few years. If you take the 34m that voted in the referendum - that might suggest that 8.5m might change their minds if offered another chance to express their opinion - and what we do know for sure is that only a small swing would be needed to change the 'will of the people' to remain.
Also it's not about just rerunning the vote, not sure why people are hung up on that... indeed that would be indeed slightly pointless. Conversely giving 'the people' the opportunity to cast their vote on the basis of actual fact and detail rather than the unsubstantiated slogans and bombast of the Brexit campaign is hardly the traitorous behaviour that the more dogmatic among us would prefer us to believe.
It's often forgotten that we do know what membership of the EU entails, including costs, responsibilities and all the associated trade and social impacts.
But whether you like it or not we still have absolutely no idea about how Brext will impact the country - on the basis of that alone it would suggest that the idea that a single advisory vote should be construed as a final (and somehow legally, politically and socially binding) contract is ludicrous.
That was never the case before... always a closed shop like Canada. Now we are leaving they have decided to modernize? Maybe they should have done that before or accepted 1of the 70 ideas we put forward.