[altairiumblue]

In general, you can't take a strictly advisory referendum with a win margin of a couple % to dictate your international policy for decades.

More specifically, when the winning side has committed campaign violations and the UK's own National Crime Agency has found illegal foreign interference, maybe you should investigate further instead of driving head on. If you ask me, this was the "assault on democracy", not the "do-over" approach as you wrote.

On do-overs - the Prime Minister is pushing to have a third vote on the exact same deal with the EU, after her proposal was rejected twice by the members in the course of a couple of weeks. So it's especially concerning when do-overs in parliament can happen until the government gets the desired result, while at the same time the people aren't given a chance to vote again and the outcome of the referendum is considered final.

[benj111]

"do-overs"

Yes it really is quite stunning, how the PM can divine such a specific meaning from one openly worded vote to the people. But can't seem to understand 600+ MPs all shouting at her "No" repeatedly for the last X months.

PM to the nation (last night). "you have spoken and I have heard you"

PM to MPs: "wrong answer last time, lets try this again"

[lorriman]

The win gap was at least 4%. (48 vs 52).

Further, the native population was far higher pro Brexit.

As for misinformation, I don't know any Brexiters who were voting based on Boris Johnson's obviously politically gamed claims from someone who is a Brexiter purely for political reasons (I don't think the population is as naive as you give them credit for, and presuming Brexiters to be stupid is BS fallacy), but on the basis that the EU is not properly democratically accountable and the Brit economic/business attitude and politics is not compatible with European ways (ie, high State control). We want to go back to a low paper-work, low-bureaucracy, liberally-inclined environment. Brexit is a start.

I have lived a significant proportion of my life in Europe, and the UK is not meaningfully European. It should have never have been a member, and has been a problem to the EU ever since. It should have been consulted on joining the EU at the very least, and it was not. Now that it has had 20 years of the EU, a 52% vote against remaining is significant.

[benj111]

"The win gap was at least 4%"

That's a narrow gap. Demographics (Brexit voters tend to be older) could easily have eroded that lead by itself in the past 3 years.

"Further, the native population was far higher pro Brexit"

The native population tends to have a lower birth rate also eroding the lead. Plus what is your point here? I cant think of a reasonable reason for even bringing it up.