How is having another vote, to establish a revised opinion based on new information and two long years of public debate and analysis of the original campaigns, undemocratic?
We could well be on path for a third general election in six years, a periodic vote to re-evaluate what we want as a country based on the current state of affairs.
Isn't being able to change your mind based on a changed context fundamental underpinning of a democratic system?
Forced into remaining by a second democratic referendum, held due to the uncovering of lies and nebulous accounting of the leave campaign that the full extent of hasn’t been fully uncovered?
1. The proven illegal overspend by Leave was enough, according to people who model these things, to sway around 800K voters. The margin was less than that.
2. This is not about FUD. This was egregious lies:
a) Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”
b) David Davies: "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside."
c) Michael Gove: "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want."
d) Boris Johnson: "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."
Never mind the £ 350m for the NHS per week on the bus.
We could well be on path for a third general election in six years, a periodic vote to re-evaluate what we want as a country based on the current state of affairs.
Isn't being able to change your mind based on a changed context fundamental underpinning of a democratic system?