Now, now, kiddies.... let's play nice. I simply think that there was so much about Brexit that was not on the table when the citizenry was asked to vote on it that the citizenry was not given the opportunity to make an informed choice. Not counting the interference from outside parties.
As a lot of info is now available as to what Brexit would entail (in whichever format it happens), I do think it not unreasonable to allow that citizenry the opportunity to decide what they want, of the options available to them, or if they'd rather remain. Did they vote to drive over a cliff? Did they vote for remaining in a customs union without the power to influence the rules they'd have to use? I don't think they had a clue about either option at the time the vote was taken.
It does impact everyone in the union, the path that "the government" takes. Scotland (62%) voted remain. Northern Ireland (55 .8 ) voted remain. England (53%) and Wales (52%) voted leave. Those are pretty close margins for leave - basically, about half of the people were in each camp in the two countries who voted leave. I'm actually surprised that a simple majority vote was used to decide something as critically important to the Union as the decision to stay/leave the EU. And, really, it's not like Brexit is "the will of the people" - certainly not for the almost half who voted against it (and then there's the 2/3rds of Scotland).
So, if the UK proceeds through Brexit, roughly half the population of each country's wishes are being ignored. (Sorry, two countries and a province, and then Scotland's 2/3rds. Yada, yada.). That's a huge percentage of the population to disenfranchise. Brexit will probably facilitate the breakup of the Union, as Scotland will almost assuredly go indy within the decade after a hard Brexit, and it's iffy even if it's a soft one. What will happen with N.I. remains to be seen. It wouldn't bother Dublin, I don't think, to have their lost counties back in the fold. But it'd be an ugly situation there, again, for some time to get to that. (Ah, hell, not again! I hate funerals.)
If it were me, and if I was running the government, I'd want to be sure that I'd given the governed the chance to make an informed decision as to what they wanted to happen. But then, there seems to be a lot more "government knows best" mentality here than I'm used to. It's irksome, but obviously an ingrained part of the culture.
I can't vote on this, and I'm not sure I would if I could. I get to stay either way. Whether or not I'll ~want~ to stay, if the social conditions in the Union of countries deteriorate as badly as some pundits are predicting, is another matter. The whole "England above all" thing is beyond a little weird.
I am not comfortable with the prospect that the original vote of roughly only half the population of two of the four countries (yeah, 3 + province) is going to impact the population of all. Driving off a cliff is going to hurt a lot of people who, realistically, have no way to protect themselves from the fallout. I would hate to see that happen. And a Brexit where the rules remain and there is no local control of them seems...well, insane, in a way, if the original intent was to sever foreign control over those rules. The game has changed, and I really do believe that the general population of the three +1 should be given a chance to decide, knowing what they hypothetically know now, what they want to do before it's too late.
And yes, you have as many referenda as it takes to make sure that you are following with what the people want. If they change their minds, they change their minds. If they don't, they don't. But they should be consulted.
