[ianai]

Really, as a pure outsider, I think anytime you redo a vote on something like this as many times as they did you increase the odds of success (leaving the EU) to 1. People will eventually switch their vote just to not have to vote any longer. It’s not necessarily a ringing nor deep endorsement of the change.

[jfengel]

Really, there was just the one referendum, and it succeeded. It was confirmed twice later, once weakly, and a second time more strongly, via parliamentary elections that both gave power to the pro-Brexit party.

I don't believe that this constitutes a ringing endorsement of Brexit, and has more to do with the failure of the Remain-focused politicians to pull together properly. But Remain was given three tries to win, and it screwed up royally last time. I do not believe it is the right choice, but it is a fait accompli and they must deal with that.

[ianai]

Right. They repeated whatever election processes it took to get the outcome they wanted. Sauce it up with whatever you want it’s still manufacturing consent.

[jfengel]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Leave won the first try. If anybody could be accused of trying for do-overs, it's Remain. In the last snap elections, one party talked about a possible new referendum, and the other outright promised to throw out the first referendum. The latter party got destroyed, and the former was merely trounced, largely on the basis of being wishy-washy.

Even in the ill-considered first snap election, the pro-Brexit Tory party was still the dominant party, despite losing seats. They came roaring back after getting new leadership that was more confidently pro-Brexit.

I reiterate that I think that this is all an incredibly bad idea, and I believe it represents a failure of democracy. But Remain had multiple chances, and lost all of them, the last time resoundingly.

[sveme]

There were two referenda on EU membership in the UK in the last fifty years.

[ianai]

If you leave out the snap election(s).