2) I should have said all facettes and effects of a Brexit, not pros and cons, as that would have been clearer. I agree that pros and cons may vary from person to person, but not what the different facettes and effects would be. Wrong choice of words, my bad.

b) It's still not clear now. Will it be a no-deal Brexit? Will there be a last minute deal after all? If yes, what would be that deal and it's effects?

The path with remain was clear, as there wouldn't be any change to the status quo. The leave however never precised the details. The only thing that was crystal clear in leave is where the UK would be on March 30 2019, that being outside of the EU. The how, however, was critical yet never addressed. 

In fact, if I would have been David Cameron at the time, I would first have negotiated a potential deal with the EU, and then asked in the referendum: Remain, Leave under that deal, and Leave - no deal. Then, at least, all the roads would have been clear, and it would have been easier to inform everybody on its effects. 

Well I never said any of this was likely, or that we had the power to negotiate anything with the EU (you're a nobody, at least to the world of politics, and I'm an American for Christ's sake), I only meant that a second referendum was the only thing besides a hard Brexit I saw as having any likelihood beyond an immeasurably small one, and that if one happened, the ranked choice vote would be the way I'd prefer it to happen. I don't think a second referendum is the most likely option, and if there were one, I highly doubt they'd ever do a ranked choice referendum, as much as I'd rather they did. I merely started discussion of it as a thought experiment, and because OP asked my preferences regarding Brexit.

You don't seem to understand representative democracy very well if you think voting for an elected official means everyone in the country has to accept what they have the power to do, yet don't understand that the Congressional Review Act is an example of that. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that any more than one vote on something would have no rationale as to why not to have an infinite number of votes, but I just disagree with you here. I regard a ranked choice vote as a fundamentally more accurate vote than a first-past-the-post vote, and if a democratic populace agreed with that sentiment, and wanted to have a second referendum capable of changing the decided policy outcome of a prior one, based on the idea that a new format could more accurately represent their opinion, then I see no reason why it would subvert democracy in any way. Nor do I see why it would warrant an infinite number of votes. It seems to me it would only warrant as many votes as could be rationalized by the initial rationale for a new vote. In the case of a new format that the people could vote on as being more accurate or not, it would warrant as many votes as the people decided upon as being warranted by the rationale "the new format would give a more accurate result" which would in turn be limited by the number of better formats people could come up with and which of those new formats you could convince a populace was more accurate. That number would not be infinite. It might not even be non-zero.

You also seem stuck on this idea that any result must be honored in full before a new vote can be had, or it somehow isn't democratic. But I really just don't understand that mindset. If I have a group of friends and we vote on where to go out to eat, and a new person joins the group and another person leaves the group, and the new person's opinion on where to go, minus the leaving person's opinion, would change the result, it would just be more democratic to have another vote. If we found out that the restaurant we were considering failed its health inspection, or were out of a particular ingredient or dish, and this changed a number of opinions in the group such that it might result in a new choice, it would be more democratic to have another vote. If a third restaurant becomes an option, and people might want that one, it would be more democratic to have another vote. And seeing as the introduction of the third option could result in the initial winner losing when in reality more people would still have preferred the original choice, ranked choice should be incorporated to prevent unnecessary levels of disappointment. There's no reason why the third restaurant option should have to be the same kind of cuisine as the original top choice, and even if it was, that doesn't mean the second place choice with a different kind of cuisine should be excluded in the second vote, certainly not if a majority of people have no problem keeping that choice in the running. I recognize this analogy is happening on a smaller scale, and that scaling this up to the size of a country carries with it unique challenges, but none of those challenges include "it was democratic with the group of friends but no longer democratic with the population of a country." If you were part of that friend group and insisted that everyone had to go to the original choice of restaurant because to have a revote was against the values of democracy, they'd probably ignore your pleas, or best case scenario for you hold a quick vote of who agrees with you, and you'd likely be overruled and ignored.

Democracy isn't the issue here with regards to "do-overs", and there are absolutely do-overs in real life. Like, all the time. Not on everything, but certainly on plenty of things, and there certainly could be a do-over on a vote if that's what the voters wanted. Furthermore, there's no need to "take turns" in a democracy, not if that's not what the populace wants. If the people give a particular party extra turns, that's fine, so long as it's what the people wanted, as accurately measured through a fair vote. I don't see how you can claim that a democratically elected republic is a "safeguard" against democracy. And your queen is most certainly not a safeguard against democracy. Not to mention the irony that you're fussing so much about your perceived values of democracy while even suggesting that democracy needs safeguards beyond the rights that uphold its very possibility (freedom of speech and the like). Furthermore, such rights themselves are safeguarded not by some outside institution like a monarchy, but by the mechanisms built into the democracy itself (like our constitution, every word of which can be overwritten with enough popular support, based entirely on mechanisms the constitution itself describes, and the constitution itself had a democratic mechanism by which it was adopted). Still furthermore, for you to claim that no comparison can be made between representative democratic mechanisms like an elected republic deciding laws and direct democratic mechanisms like a referendum deciding a policy suggests that you think the actions of representatives are not endorsed by the mandate of the vote that put them into office (odd, considering your focus on mandates). Combined with your comment about republics acting as checks on democracy, it betrays just how poorly you understand how modern democracy works.

But yes, regarding the bold, I too found that hilarious. I don't know how you couldn't, regardless of your political persuasion.

Again, the decision of representatives are NOT DEMOCRATIC because the citizens themselves get no say in those instances. You need to come to the realization that what happens in congress is the result of a republic rather than a democracy. The only time whenever democracy happens is election time so do not conflate democracy with decisions by an elected representatives as a justification for overturning the former because the two are entirely different concepts. As for your following sentences, unfortunately just having a different format alone is not going to be a good enough justification to call for a new referendum and so far an overwhelming majority in the parliament seems to think so too since they can't come to a consensus on one yet. Only under such EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES should a sovereign nation's greater powers even consider overturning a democratic mandate and the threat no-deal Brexit isn't severe enough grounds to withdraw Article 50 or holding another referendum with a "better format" (which is arguable in itself when both the parliament and the electoral commission converged on a agreed format initially) ... 

Why not though? Why is that not justification? Why is the bar so high? I'm not suggesting the elected representatives simply overturn the vote because they don't like it, I'm saying that there could be nothing more justifying to overturn the results of an election than a later election. Obviously there is no consensus in parliament, but that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, which is not "will parliament do a ranked choice referendum?" (They won't) But rather "what if parliament did a ranked choice vote referendum?" I disagree with your conception of democratic republic, but I don't see any point in discussing that further. In a world where parliament could agree on a format, a second referendum could overturn the results of a first one, so long as it was equally as accurate as the first. Sure it would be better if it provided a more accurate measurement, and a more accurate measurement could provide parliament with sufficient reason to hold a second referendum, but even if they just did a redo referendum, with just Leave or Remain as the only options, if the results change, you just have to suck it up. You would end up on the losing side of democracy, something that happens. Elections have consequences, and all that. This elections consequences would just be to undo the consequences of the election your side won. Oh well, that's democracy. You've yet to explain why my reasons don't justify a new referendum, or why referendums should never be overturned even by other referendums, beyond "we've never done that before!" It's just not enough of a reason to not have a second referendum. At the very least, they could have a "second referendum" referendum with Yes and No options for holding a second referendum, and then what happens? That referendum referendum isn't itself a referendum, so it doesn't defy your arbitrary rules, but if the nation votes Yes to that referendum, then there's a contradiction in your logic. You have to honor both referendums, even though honoring the second referendum would mean a third referendum could overturn the first, but since the second one wasn't directly against the first, it's fine. It's just asking the electorate what it thinks. Why is what the electorate thinks on something a sacred matter for the first referendum, but not for subsequent referendums? Simple, it's because your side won the first referendum and you're scared of losing. Ultimately, if parliament decided to hold a second referendum, you could whine all you want, it would change nothing. If a referendum referendum were held and the result were Yes, then you really would have no ground to stand on, since the electorate spoke and said they wanted a redo referendum, and got what they asked for. You're constantly moving the goal posts here so that democracy is sacred when it works to your goals but something that must be defended against or somehow in conflict with itself if it is against your goals.

A vote should only be broken when it is absolutely necessitated in very extreme cases, arguably cases more extreme than a foreign invader. If a civil war or a constitutional crisis arises then maybe it'll be taken into consideration but even that's not guaranteed with massive amounts of chaos ... 

Oh good grief. Why? This is an unsubstantiated opinion. Give some reasons WHY things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum? Because that's what we're talking about here. Not "breaking a vote" which would be parliament going against the first referendum WITHOUT a second referendum to mandate it. We're talking about a second referendum, but you keep talking about it like the second referendum itself is the first vote being broken, when if it did get broken, it would get broken BY ANOTHER VOTE FROM THE PEOPLE. Why isn't that okay? You just keep making unsubstantiated claims that your definition of democracy is the right one without explaining why yours is right or mine is wrong.

@Bold Of course you don't understand since you're going trivialize a sacred custom that's a part of an entire nation's political process with your own example. You have yet to both observe and accept the wisdom that comes out of institutions that keeps standing up against the test of time. If you're going to pick and choose recalls for election results that you didn't like, you have a democracy at hand that's no better than a dictatorship in which a sole party has all of the power to keep calling for new elections until they get the results that they want. The biggest reason you can't come to grips with the mindset is because you simply can't accept democratic results which are in conflict with your beliefs and ideologies so you discard them instead ... (it creates a cognitive dissonance in which you believe that you are always somehow 'righteous' and that the majority will agree with you no matter what so this is your way of seeking validation within society but this is not a sign of being right rather it's just a sign of arrogance when people don't agree with you) 

What are you on about now? Referendums aren't parties, or decisions by parties, they're decisions by the people. There are Conservative Remainers and Labour Leavers. Referendums aren't one-party rule. If anything, they're a way to subvert one party rule, as if there is a referendum, and it goes against a majority parties wishes, that majority party has little recourse. You keep projecting your own issues onto me. I would like to see a second referendum with a new format. If the new format resulted in Hard Brexit, I wouldn't contest that (even if I were a UK citizen). You're the one who is scared that society might not agree with you. I'm not. It's not even my society for Christ's sake. It's yours. I live across the ocean. If you leave or remain it has little effect on me. Have I mentioned morality even once with regard to whether Leave or Remain is correct? No, I haven't. I've merely said that if I had a say, I'd want a second referendum, and described what I would want that to look like. And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, there you go again making democracy sacred when it suits you. Why is another democratic choice not sacred just because it could go against the democratic choice you agree with? What makes the election you won sacred and the one that could overturn your results profane? They're both democratic referendums, one merely is more fair (mine, unless you'd like to say why first-past-the-post is more fair, something you've yet to do), but even if you did a straight redo of your FPTP referendum, that would just make both referendums the same, yet one is sacred because you won it, and the other is profane because you might lose (YOU MIGHT NOT, WOULD THE SECOND RESULT BECOME SACRED THEN?). And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, that's nonsense. I made an analogy. A good one. That made a good point, that you couldn't argue with, so you just shooed it away as "trivializing the sacred." I merely described a scaled down version of what you disingenuously consider sacred when it suits you.

When it comes elections or referendums, I've yet to ever see a 'do-over' happen in my lifetime so the institutions that exist in place must be getting something right since we've never experienced a crisis in life. As far as "not taking turns" are concerned that's absolutely not true in real life when higher powers forbid that from happening. You are forgetting a good reason why we use a republic or a monarchy to install anti-democratic mechanisms in place such as 'term limits', 'fixed terms', 'states reigning supreme', 'lords', and even 'representatives' are all things that are undemocratic so that people just can't always call for a vote for whenever they want. The reason why you can't see a republic or a monarchy being a safeguard against democracy is because you lack the historical insights of how a democracy develops in reality. Before America was even a democracy, it was first and foremost a republic and to this day it rings true especially since 3/4ths of the state legislatures have even greater powers than the people themselves. Also, the monarch IS a safeguard against democracy theoretically speaking because their powers are much more far reaching than you think. I don't see the irony in needing safeguards in a democracy since we need higher powers of a monarchy or a republic to oversee the electoral process because the majority can't ever be trusted to organize elections but at the same time it is those higher powers that compel us to defend democracy too if the people demand it. The American Civil War sets a precedent as to why we need to keep respecting the democratic result because it is in a republics interest to also defend their own democratic result from being overturned. Right now, the zealous remainers are no better than the confederate states if both are to so blatantly deprive the public of social changes that they demand then they may as well reject the basic tenets of democracy too ...

You merely said, do-over, not specifically referendum. And here you are on again about anti-democratic mechanisms. We apparently need outside institutions to protect us from the sacred. You continue to fail to understand the fundamental ways that various governmental systems work.

And 'who' might exactly build the constitution itself ? You are mistaken if you think it is democracy that creates the constitution. Only the states or the royal houses get to have the final say in the matter. The constitution does not exist to represent the people, it exists to represent the republic or the monarchy. Rights are guaranteed by consensus from the higher powers so a democracy serves no purpose in that instance. I argue that there is no comparison between an elected representatives decision and the people voting because they are not equivalent in principle. The latter only exists to give the former a mandate to ascend to the office, the mandate as an elected representative to make decisions comes on behalf of the republic. To put it simply an elected representative is NOT compelled to represent the people, it is compelled to represent the republic itself and it's specifically why lawmakers break out of rank with their own constituency very often when the likes of Yvette Cooper does not agree with her own constituency (~70% leavers and likely hardcore ones at that) regarding Brexit by trying to block it. A decision made by an elected representative DOES NOT represent a mandate from the people, it represents the mandate from the republic or a monarchy and you need a better grasp at understanding this delicate power structure ... (you need to see the structure between democracy and a republic/monarchy not as a single indistinguishable entity but as the embodiment of two unique forces coupled to each other) 

Yep. You're completely out of touch with what democracy means. Maybe in your society it is fine for representatives to not represent the people that voted for them, but not in America. We clearly have fundamentally different values and principles regarding what democracy is and what the purpose of an elected official is. We can hardly argue something like this if we can't agree on the meaning of the terms we're supposed to be arguing about.

As for your last sentence, I found it to be more beautiful than funny ... 

HylianSwordsman said:

Why not though? Why is that not justification? Why is the bar so high? I'm not suggesting the elected representatives simply overturn the vote because they don't like it, I'm saying that there could be nothing more justifying to overturn the results of an election than a later election. Obviously there is no consensus in parliament, but that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, which is not "will parliament do a ranked choice referendum?" (They won't) But rather "what if parliament did a ranked choice vote referendum?" I disagree with your conception of democratic republic, but I don't see any point in discussing that further. In a world where parliament could agree on a format, a second referendum could overturn the results of a first one, so long as it was equally as accurate as the first. Sure it would be better if it provided a more accurate measurement, and a more accurate measurement could provide parliament with sufficient reason to hold a second referendum, but even if they just did a redo referendum, with just Leave or Remain as the only options, if the results change, you just have to suck it up. You would end up on the losing side of democracy, something that happens. Elections have consequences, and all that. This elections consequences would just be to undo the consequences of the election your side won. Oh well, that's democracy. You've yet to explain why my reasons don't justify a new referendum, or why referendums should never be overturned even by other referendums, beyond "we've never done that before!" It's just not enough of a reason to not have a second referendum. At the very least, they could have a "second referendum" referendum with Yes and No options for holding a second referendum, and then what happens? That referendum referendum isn't itself a referendum, so it doesn't defy your arbitrary rules, but if the nation votes Yes to that referendum, then there's a contradiction in your logic. You have to honor both referendums, even though honoring the second referendum would mean a third referendum could overturn the first, but since the second one wasn't directly against the first, it's fine. It's just asking the electorate what it thinks. Why is what the electorate thinks on something a sacred matter for the first referendum, but not for subsequent referendums? Simple, it's because your side won the first referendum and you're scared of losing. Ultimately, if parliament decided to hold a second referendum, you could whine all you want, it would change nothing. If a referendum referendum were held and the result were Yes, then you really would have no ground to stand on, since the electorate spoke and said they wanted a redo referendum, and got what they asked for. You're constantly moving the goal posts here so that democracy is sacred when it works to your goals but something that must be defended against or somehow in conflict with itself if it is against your goals.

HylianSwordsman said:

Oh good grief. Why? This is an unsubstantiated opinion. Give some reasons WHY things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum? Because that's what we're talking about here. Not "breaking a vote" which would be parliament going against the first referendum WITHOUT a second referendum to mandate it. We're talking about a second referendum, but you keep talking about it like the second referendum itself is the first vote being broken, when if it did get broken, it would get broken BY ANOTHER VOTE FROM THE PEOPLE. Why isn't that okay? You just keep making unsubstantiated claims that your definition of democracy is the right one without explaining why yours is right or mine is wrong.

HylianSwordsman said: 

What are you on about now? Referendums aren't parties, or decisions by parties, they're decisions by the people. There are Conservative Remainers and Labour Leavers. Referendums aren't one-party rule. If anything, they're a way to subvert one party rule, as if there is a referendum, and it goes against a majority parties wishes, that majority party has little recourse. You keep projecting your own issues onto me. I would like to see a second referendum with a new format. If the new format resulted in Hard Brexit, I wouldn't contest that (even if I were a UK citizen). You're the one who is scared that society might not agree with you. I'm not. It's not even my society for Christ's sake. It's yours. I live across the ocean. If you leave or remain it has little effect on me. Have I mentioned morality even once with regard to whether Leave or Remain is correct? No, I haven't. I've merely said that if I had a say, I'd want a second referendum, and described what I would want that to look like. And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, there you go again making democracy sacred when it suits you. Why is another democratic choice not sacred just because it could go against the democratic choice you agree with? What makes the election you won sacred and the one that could overturn your results profane? They're both democratic referendums, one merely is more fair (mine, unless you'd like to say why first-past-the-post is more fair, something you've yet to do), but even if you did a straight redo of your FPTP referendum, that would just make both referendums the same, yet one is sacred because you won it, and the other is profane because you might lose (YOU MIGHT NOT, WOULD THE SECOND RESULT BECOME SACRED THEN?). And as for "trivializing" a sacred custom, that's nonsense. I made an analogy. A good one. That made a good point, that you couldn't argue with, so you just shooed it away as "trivializing the sacred." I merely described a scaled down version of what you disingenuously consider sacred when it suits you.

HylianSwordsman said: 

You merely said, do-over, not specifically referendum. And here you are on again about anti-democratic mechanisms. We apparently need outside institutions to protect us from the sacred. You continue to fail to understand the fundamental ways that various governmental systems work.

HylianSwordsman said: 

Yep. You're completely out of touch with what democracy means. Maybe in your society it is fine for representatives to not represent the people that voted for them, but not in America. We clearly have fundamentally different values and principles regarding what democracy is and what the purpose of an elected official is. We can hardly argue something like this if we can't agree on the meaning of the terms we're supposed to be arguing about.

The standard is high because respecting the past precedent is a part of just about EVERY western liberal democracies institutions. We pay the price of having to uphold the original democratic results in order to keep stability. if we don't apply calling for elections before a politician's term has ended then it shouldn't be applied to referendums before the result is implemented. Stability, social change, and protecting the legitimacy of democracy are the benefits we get by upholding result and if you don't believe the reasoning behind why these benefits outweigh the drawbacks then we'll agree to disagree but by that point you should question if you're truly an advocate for democracy ... 

I did not move goal posts, it's that you do not to actually care about respecting the results. You didn't see me pout or cry foul when Obama won all the while rabid calling for another immediate election so it's now time for you to accept both Trump and Brexit as the legitimate outcomes. In democracy there are NO right sides and if you can't come to terms with it then you need to stop speaking for democracy ... 

Lol, if you dont apply calling for elections before a politician's term has ended? Your own prime minister called snap elections! And nearly lost them! Now that's something I'd have found "beautiful". Past precedent matters only to a point. If "we haven't ever had a referendum capable of overturning a previous one" is what you call a precedent, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a good enough reason to not hold a new election if that's what the people want? Simply never having done something before doesn't make it a precedent not to do it. Again, why does democracy only need to be respected when it works your way? When it's the first referendum, it's sacred democracy, when it's the second, you pull the "precedent" nonsense because a second referendum could make you lose, and that scares you, so now the formerly sacred democracy must be protected from its own will so that its own will can be carried out. That's ridiculous.

Instead of demanding a reason from me as to why we shouldn't break a precedent, give me a better reason why we should in this instance with Brexit ?! Elections in the US have NEVER been overturned even when the confederate states challenged Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the White House and the UK has made good on it's obligations so far regarding all referendums it's held ... 

As a famous politician once said, "elections have consequences" and if you can't come to that reconciliation then maybe we shouldn't have had him as president in the first place ? 

I have. Multiple times. It's because in my case, you have a more accurate way of measuring the result, and public understanding has increased so they can make a more informed choice. And black people couldn't vote before Abraham Lincoln's ascension to the White House either. Some precedents need to be broken. And if you're that obsessed with precedent, there's no reason they couldn't have a "Rejoin" referendum, where instead of overturning the first referendum, the choices are "Leave" or "Rejoin" and "Rejoin" means that Britain makes a deal with the EU to rejoin the EU immediately after leaving. Technically this doesn't break precedent, it just isn't very satisfying for leavers, but then neither would staying out for a couple years before a new referendum rejoined you later. Yes, elections have consequences, and you're scared of the consequences of a second referendum. Again, it COULD go your way. I think you know you'd lose though, which is why you're so scared of it. Now stop squirming away from good arguments and give me a reason why things have to be so extreme to have a second referendum.

I could've used the term 'faction' instead of 'party' and my point still stands at the end. In democracy, there are NO right sides and referendums can also exist to enhance a single party's rule like we see with the 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum letting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan having an even tighter grip on power so case in point it goes both ways ... 

No it doesn't. Referendums aren't a party. Factions like Leave and Remain are cross-partisan, even non-partisan at times. Referendum's like Turkey's hardly serve as an example with how much manipulation of the process we saw. That was electoral fraud.

@Bold It's hypocritical of you to call me scared when you won't respect the results of the original format. A new format is not necessarily better ... 

No it isn't. Because I'm not scared. I'm in America. This doesn't affect me. And I respect the results of the first format, which is why I think ONLY a second referendum could overturn it. That's democratic. Only the current will of the people can overturn the past will of the people, because to me, democracy is always sacred, but to you, it's only when it works for you.

Why isn't my format better?

If you don't see democracy as being sacred then why on earth should we even accept any results at all or even with a second vote ? If there's anything I've learned it's that you do not like the democratic results when it does not suit you which is why you are invested to have an argument over Brexit ... (it's not THAT hard to see that if you can take in Trump as being the president then you can accept Brexit as well) 

I do see it as sacred. All the time. I'm saying for you, it's only sacred when it works for you. A second referendum wouldn't profane the sacredness of democracy, it would enhance the sacredness, because it measures the will of the people more accurately and currently with the most informed populace possible. We'd respect the results of the second because we respected the results of the first as well. After all, the second includes the winner of the first, and the first will be done if there is no referendum, it will only be overturned if the people want to. A third referendum wouldn't be needed because people aren't going to get more informed than they are now, and it's doubtful another better format will present itself. If it did, again you have the "referendum referendum" I suggested to see if the people think a new referendum is warranted. Hell, the people might not want to hold another referendum just because they're tired of the stress of politics, in which case they might vote No to the second Brexit referendum.

BTW, a flaw with your "ranked voting" proposal is that there is no way to define either a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit so what exactly is the "middle ground" in this instance ? If you can't define that then don't bring up the idea again because otherwise there was no flaw with the original referendum in that regard since both options and the question were clear and unambiguous. The original referendum can be described as watertight. It's also a failure on the part of a democracy to NOT honour it's own results so if it doesn't then it may as well be a failed democracy ... 

Now see, finally you're actually addressing my proposal instead of just complaining about precedent. I did define them though. Hard Brexit is No Deal. I know that was several responses ago, but hopefully you recall. If you do, you may also recall that soft Brexit was May's deal. Remain then is revoking article 50. The original referendum was NOT watertight precisely because it didn't show exactly what the Brexit deal would be. If things were being done properly, the first referendum would have been to persue a Brexit deal, not actually Brexit. The Brexit talks should have been done BEFORE article 50 was invoked, May would have come out with her deal, and THEN the second referendum would be held to decide on whether to take No Deal, May's Deal, or Remain. In this case, No Deal means invoke 50, let the period expire without pursuing a deal with the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations, while May's Deal means invoke 50, use May's deal for the EU, use the time to build a trade network with other nations. Remain would just mean to call of pursuit of the Brexit and remain, the possibility of which would have been written into the first referendum to be perfectly transparent with the people. This reality would be much better as May would have much more time to negotiate a good deal, and the maximum amount of time could be devoted to securing better trade deals elsewhere, and the whole process would be more orderly for business and citizens alike. But it's too late for that because your government fucked up majorly and didn't even try to plan ahead. So instead, the best we can hope for is to allow a second Brexit referendum, or at least a referendum on whether to have a second Brexit referendum, with the choices for the second Brexit referendum being No Deal, May's Deal, and Remain, as described at the beginning of this paragraph. Since people would in this circumstance know what precisely a hard and soft Brexit would be, this resolves your perceived flaw. It isn't perfect, I suppose, as it isn't the ideal situation described in my second scenario with the planning ahead, but it's better than forcing a public that may have changed its mind to accept an outcome it doesn't want anymore.

A single vote matters more because the date becomes of even greater importance thus we can also get an accurate reading of turnout ... 

So not only did I layout a previous case against holding a second vote but we can also add another reason such as lower turnout ... 

Then mandate turnout if that bothers you so much. Your problems aren't hard to solve, you're just being disingenuous with your arguments.

We also need institutions to protect democracy as well so it's balancing act and protecting it's results is the consensus ... 

Yes but not outside institutions like a monarchy.

@Bold Even in America a representative doesn't have to fall in line with it's voters because they are simply not obligated to. The voters only compel politicians to take seats, not for politicians to decide on behalf of them so that goes squarely with the republic. This is why America is bipartisan so the representatives will very often vote along party lines despite the fact that there are probably districts that are middle ground on a multitude of issues. Perfect representation is NOT a thing ... (it's not physically possible to gauge what exactly over hundreds of thousands of people want as a single person) 

Yes, not the entire electorate, but they have to fall in line with the voters that voted them, or they won't get voted in again. I do wish we had multi-member districts or mixed member proportional representation to make it more accurate and represent as many people as possible as closely as possible, but that'll be a lot of work to get that to change.

The UK doesn't have much that's fundamentally different to the US aside from being a monarchy and they even have "boundary review" (redistricting in the US) along with "unequal voting power" just like the electoral college ... 

I identify as independent here in the states, but I'd definitely be a Republican if I lived in Ireland. Screw your monarchy. No offense meant to you personally of course, I just have strong feelings about monarchies in general.

Matter of fact, Americans are so culturally and historically tied by heritage to the entire developed commonwealth realm to the point where they don't even have EU style freedom of movement! Oops, I guess freedom of movement was wrong for the UK after all if they feel there's more friction to be had from the other Europeans rather than the high end Anglosphere outsider nations ... 

I'm certainly not arguing there aren't flaws with our system. I don't experience any hindrance to freedom of movement between states though. I recognize there are laws around interstate commerce, but it certainly has never restricted my movement, so I feel like I effectively have freedom of movement.

Lmao!

(there's a) "special place in hell" for "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely".

I kinda agree with him, the politicans are crazy for not haveing a plan agreed upon before just starting a leaveing process.
Before they revoked article 50, they should have had cross party support for a single plan, that could be carried out without issues.

Instead the UK basically just gambled their future, and thought "well this should be easy enough" without putting any for thought into it.
Everyone knew it would be a mess, its why david cameron left afterwards.
Its why everyone that promoted brexit, instead of actually helping and staying around to try and fix things, is just kicking back and laughing at the oposition.

The politicans are in-fighting, and useing Brexit as a means to win points, come election, without reguard for the consequences it ll have on the future of the UK.

edit:

"Well, I doubt Lucifer would welcome them, as after what they did to Britain, they would even manage to divide hell."  -
Guy Verhofstadt

And people say those guys in Brussel are technocrats, they definitely have some wit.