"There is nothing advisory when a vote is held before which the nation's PM promises, verbally and in writing, that the government will obey the result and carry out the wishes of the majority. That forms a binding contract with the electorate. Much as many with personal disappointment issues would like to rewrite the terms under which people voted after the event because they don't like the result, it would be fundamentally undemocratic to allow them to do so."

This comment, quoted by Iains, appears after an article on Iain's fave website, made by someone called "Malcolm" who we know nothing about apart from the fact that he or she's a brexiteer. The vote was advisory because the act passed that permitted it didn't say otherwise. That's the rules, Iains, and Cameron had no power to override that just on his say-so. We don't run our democracy like that. The comment about a "binding contract" is entirely specious. The last sentence has nothing to do with what is now being campaigned for apropos of another referendum. No-one to my knowledge is calling for a rerun or a rewriting of terms, whatever that means. The question on the ballot paper will be a different one, and we know far more now than we knew last time around.