Which we enforce for 4 years or more. We don't just drop them and redo the elections if we don't like the winning party.

We didn’t just drop the idea of Brexit either. The country has [supposedly] put more than two years hard graft into figuring this out. The unanimous result of the research time invested is that it’ll be worse for everyone.

Now that we have much more information, it’s not unreasonable to reconsider.

The first referendum was on whether we should leave the EU. The second is on whether we should still leave on these terms. There's a subtle, but key, difference IMO.

Bad example, as May called an election in 2017, 2 years after the prior election.

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

More realisticly this is would be the next election on the same idea. Treat the options like a political party.

The leave party made a lot of promises and people voted for them. They came into power. The leave party has no been shown to be pursuing, criminals, and incompetents over the period of their rule. Why not have the next election now so that the parties rule can be assessed?

Every election is a really a referendum on the promises and actions of the previous one. The US did it with prohibition, the UK could do it here.

Not in the UK, where in fact snap general elections are a thing, and Theresa May called one in 2017. In the absence of a snap election or no-confidence vote the election cycle in the UK takes place every five years. The point being that elections can be monstrously frequent under the right conditions in the UK.

Are you suggesting that the UK should vote every 4 year or so to decide whether they should be in the EU? I mean I guess at this point there are no bad ideas...

> Are you suggesting that the UK should vote every 4 year or so to decide whether they should be in the EU?

Or maybe it shouldn't, in general, vote at all on that as a separate question (after first resolving if people really want to go forward with the current exit process now that there is more clarity on what that entails) except perhaps to confirm it reject an exit under a deal negotiated after a government-decided invocation of Art. 50 provides a concrete choice, since it's a complex question involving potential for negotiated terms that intersects with every other policy area; maybe the UK should vote for a Parliament and let Parliament balance the issues, proposing referenda only when the public have he information about the choices that makes the decision meaningful.

The first referendum on Brexit was a fairly naked political ploy to punt on exactly that Parliamentary duty with the hope of creating partisan advantage in a general election.

Maybe it would be a good idea that all EU countries have a periodic referendum on EU membership. If a rich and powerful country really wants to keep a smaller, more troubled country in the union, they will have to make it worth it for the citizens of that country. It would improve the balance of power and integration in the union.