The losing side in any referendum, especially if the result was close, can be relied on to callfor a fresh vote soon enough. That would without doubt have happened if it had gone the other way in 2016. (Nigel Farage even promised on the night the result was declared.). The winner could be relied on to assert that a fresh vote once "the people had spoken" as an attack on democracy. There is no diubt that those favouring remain would have done that too.

But in both cases the actual reason for that wouldn't be anything so high-principled, it's simply a fear that another vote would come up with a different result.

I think that allowing a fresh note is the only democratic way to act. People have a right to change their mind - as time passes people who were too young to vote grow old enough. And of course circumstances mean that the question that needs to be asked changes.

Where there is a significant delay in carrying out the result of a referendum so that the number of fresh voters is greater than the margin of victory, and there is a significant demand for a new vote, it seems to me clear that a comittment to democracy should mean having such a vote.

As for "democracy" could anyone suggest that Norway, Denmark and Ireland are traitors to democracy because in analogous circumstances they had another vote? (In Norway the vote was to confirm the first vote to leave, in Denmark and Norway the outcome was to reverse it.) And tha5 in denying people any