Democracy is a process not a single vote.

People voted based on russian-funded lies funnelled through corrupt millionaires like Arron Banks, illegally funded and illegally targetting voters with murky data from the likes of cambridge analytica, using extensive and highly targetted ad campaigns on FB (still going on btw - over £500k spent this week). Among other lies politicians told them that we'd stay in the custons union and havd more money for the nhs, but mostly they played on a fear of immigrants.

Brexit won by a tiny margin on the largest constitutional change since the act of union, but somehow 'the will of the people' at that moment in time is inviolate and can never be questioned.

That's facism, not democracy.

> People voted based on russian-funded lies ...

Well I voted Leave because this is likely to be the last chance for the UK to get out of ever-tighter European political integration. About which we were never consulted before engaging.

In the 1980s I backpacked around Europe and met many wonderful people. But not once did I think that "what we need is an additional layer of federal government to bind us all into one destiny". They were countries of Europe, but beyond trade every country got on with its own affairs. And things seemed to be OK.

The Common Market was a good idea, but things took a more sinister turn in 1992 with the Maastricht Treaty. Who was driving that? Not the common people of Europe as far as I could tell.

To me, Brexit was an opportunity for asking myself: why does the EU exist, why did it supercede the EEC and what is the end-goal? I didn't like any of the answers.

I do think we should avoid talk of 'the common people' because it's impossible to know with any clarity what 'the people' want, and it changes over time. This is why we live in a representative democracies, not direct democracies.

Personally I think the EU is a force for good in the world. It has failings - the parliament does not yet have enough power, and the treatment of Greece was a travesty, but in spite of that it has lead Europe from war, dictatorship and acrimony to peace and prosperity. The end goal is of course a federal state and for the states within that to be subsidiary, and a large free market of work and goods within that area. Sounds good to me compared to the sclerotic British state still fondly grasping at dreams of lost Empire.

If the EU fails, the UK fails with it, regardless of whether we are in or out. If war comes to Europe we will not be able to avoid it. So the independence given by Brexit is an illusion. I find it highly unlikely that the UK will have more influence, more independence ore more power outside the EU, simply because of its size and proximity. So in my view Brexit is a false choice between a dream of independence which cannot truly exist in our global world, and the spectre of an evil federal state dictating our every move. Why not help to build the federal state we'd like to see in the world? If I had to start somewhere building a new state, I certainly wouldn't start with the current UK political system and UK state.

And if the remainers had won with a 'tiny margin' the same argument could be made. It's clear you have an agenda though you don't apply the same arguments on the other side for those whose pockets are well-lined directly by the EU. I do understand that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. As for your comparison with fascism, you need to extend your reading on the subject.

My point was it is very foolish and provides no democratic mandate to vote on such vast changes with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, it was an extremely bad idea in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. So I think you're agreeing with me there.

You think the EU funded illegal propaganda like that funded via the russian embassy? Got any proof of that? Arron banks is being investigated currently:

https://www.politico.eu/article/arron-banks-investigated-ove...

I believe rhetoric like 'the will of the people' is facist.

You've been downvoted, but this is the core issue preventing a simple solution.

It is legitimately damaging to democracy to have the results of a referendum ignored. That referendum shouldn't have been executed in the manner it was, but we can't ignore the outcome.

The problem is, the practical reality of that vote (as it has worked out) is pretty sketchy, and pleases very few people. So now we have the three immediate options of "no deal" (obviously catastrophic), "negotiated deal" (no political support) and "cancel" (directly opposed to the referendum outcome).

Honestly the only way I see out of it with even a shred of democracy left is to hold a second referendum to ratify the deal.

I agree.

The problem with a second referendum, though, is that the vote is to stay it won't be "the country" changing its mind. The country doesn't have one. If 5 percentage points of the previous 52% change their minds, the 47% that voted (Brexit, Brexit) will feel betrayed, as they will (actually) have been sold out. They were told that their first decision would count, then people-who-were-not-them demanded another vote, then people-who-were-not-them took their victory away.

Of course, those of us who voted (Remain, Remain) will be happy, but this isn't exactly analogous to a general election, where this kind of change-of-result is expected. The referendum was supposed to be a one-off, and 'those people' will have stolen Brexit.

I have a bit of sympathy for this position, but I have a lot more concern for the long-term consequences of reducing trust in the political process even further.

Nobody voted for what is about to happen. Or May’s deal.

That’s the whole issue (apart from putting Brexit up to a 50% referendum in the first place).

The usual suggestion is not to ignore the vote, but to put it back up for a vote. Ask people if, now that they've seen the difficulty of Brexit, they still want to do this. If the people actually want the Brexit that exists in real life, they'll reaffirm. It's still democratic by any reasonable definition of the word.

Having people vote again and again until you get the result you want is like ignoring the vote.

First of all, two votes is not "again and again" in any sense of the phrase. I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end.

Second of all, bringing something up for a vote more that once is not like ignoring the vote. Rejected proposals are very often brought back up, maybe with some retooling, maybe just in hopes that the passage of time has made them more palatable. For example, Quebec voted on its equivalent of Brexit twice, and though it was a bit of a joke, it wasn't generally viewed as shady.

It is possible to use additional referendums as a stalling tactic, and if you kept doing it forever, you would effectively be ignoring the vote. But again, nobody is suggesting that. Putting it up for another vote now that the public has more information would literally just be democracy.

> I take your point, but nobody is suggesting referendums without end.

Of course not, just until people vote remain!