You don't like my talking about a third referendum (which would be predicated on very different information from that given to voters from the 2016 one), but you're happy to call the latter a second referendum, which was predicated, in your view, on the fact that the EU had become a very different beast, as you've painstakingly spelled out for us in some rather dense prose. Well let's just fantasise a little and guess at the percentage of the 2016 electorate who knew anything at all about your potted history as they voted. I'd guess about one in twenty (OK, Nigel, that isn't a percentage, so 5%?) How about you? In other words, it would be far-fetched to claim that the electorate voted the way they did because they disapproved of the evolution of the EU. I'm claiming that nearly all of them actually knew diddly squat about it. If you don't believe me, risk losing your mates down the pub by asking them what they know about the history of the EU since 1975. One point and fifteen passes, I should think.