That's what the vast majority are asking for - a vote on the deal that has been presented, not another referendum.
https://www.peoples-vote.uk/
So the problem you have is not with having another referendum, it's the time that's lapsed? The first referendum was legitimate and they voted to be in.
How much time has to go by before you would consider another referendum legitimate?
The vast majority you say in your first point. I have just came back from the UK. I saw no sign of that. I might well not have been aware of it as I am a long way from the self styled Metropolitan Elite, but they do not represent the rest of the UK. Many of us think they are what is wrong with the country, creaming off the Quangos and living the life of Riley in doing so. Did they have a referendum in my absence to validate your point of view?
I voted in the first referrendum in the 70's. This was a post facto referendum. My immediate family would not have voted to join if the referendum had been before the accession, but those who think they know best just presented us with a fete accomplis. Some years later we had the referendum. My group of friends voted to stay in and give it a chance, despite not having wanted to go in in the first place, and the referendum was won.
As time went by we became somewhat brassed off with the EU. I think that in part that this was due to the over zealous taking aboard of EU directives, which we tended to implement. For example I always like pork chops with kidneys attached, but we were suddenly not allowed to have them. Yet in France they could be bought. Clearly the French paid lip service to the law, but did not enforce them. There were many cases where this happened. We even took on the bureaucracy to do the enforcing. A friend in France got a token job with one member of staff to do what another friend did as part of a team of 6 in the UK. The French guy just twiddled his fingers and went to the office to sign on. Full Stop.
So when out of the blue Cameron held the referendum recently, presumably having been advised by the pollsters that he would win, and thus have a strong mandate for whatever he wanted to do, the public rejected the EU. I had been telephone polled by some one who sounded Indian, and as we get a lot of this nonsense I gave her a hard time. I eventually agreed to take part in her survey, thinking it was going to be a hard sell for something like double glazing, only to find it was re my attitude to the EU. So I told her it was the way forward, that the EU needed to be expanded even if it meant war with Russia, that Turkey and Georgia should be included, and that the nonsense in Syria would be over in a flash if the EU took over Syria and even Israel, Lebanon etc. She asked me if corruption was a problem for me, and I said it was a regrettable necessity to equalise past injustices, just part of the price you pay for progress to a world state.
As the pollsters use very few respondents, this possibily had a disproportionate effect. Anyway, Cameron went ahead, and got the shock of his life.
.
May called an election on the basis of polls, and also got a nasty shock. When will they ever learn? Instead of being true to whatever principles they have, they try to trim their presentations to get power. They disgust - yes! -DISGUST - me .
. In a recent press article the referendum by Campbell was said to be his biggest mistake. That could only be so if the most important thing was to stay in the EU, and keep him as PM. I don't subscribe to that concept. "The goverment of the people, by the people and for the people" is more my idea.
