And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts.
Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old?
Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves.
>And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts
You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess? How are those remainer's fault again?
What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is that the vote was non-binding?
Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.
That is an argument you can make for every election.
And that is why we hold new elections every few years, instead of just sticking with the people we picked last time.
There was a vote, we've spent the last 3 years dealing with it and the result (the deal) was roundly rejected. "Ok, what now?" Is not an unreasonable question to ask people.
The EU didn't have anything to do with the calling of referendum.
The voices calling for a 2nd vote are inside the UK.
>the facts on the ground have changed,
The facts haven't changed, they've just been established for the first time - big difference.
As commented above, it's like asking the voting public "Do you want lower taxes, yes or no?" That depends on an awful lot! How much lower? How is the decrease in revenue going to be handled? Will there be cuts? If so to what? Will there be a debt increase? Etc...
Do we want political decisions of this level of importance and complexity to be made through a process of vague referendums? Seems like madness to me.