The stupid voters just have to be asked again and again until they give the right answer. Along the way, in accordance with true democratic principles, the rulers try to alter the culture and retrain the demos in order to achieve the right answer.

And once they give the correct answer, then they're declared to have finally spoken, to understand their true interests as properly defined, and any further revote is a huge crime against democracy.

Then there are more enlightened systems in which they may be asked to vote, and if they get it wrong enlightened and wise philosopher rulers revise their decisions (which are, after all, made in pencil) in accordance with higher moralities.

I mean, we certainly can't let the demos or people rule in a democracy. That would be silly.

(And that said, it really doesn't matter if I'm in favor of Brexit or not. If the principle "democracy" is a good thing overall, on average, in general, that entails that the good and the bad merely result in "better than other systems." The problem is that no ruling class ever thinks, "Gee, you know, we really suck at this and know less than others." No, the attitude is, "I believe in myself and those like me, and of course we're superior. I could agree with them, but then we'd both be wrong; I could go along with them, but why should I side with evil? No, no, I'll just go with the winner. Me!&quot

It's not like they haven't tried to execute the will of the people. But they have the nonnegotiable set of demands. Brexit, with a deal, but no NI border. That just isn't going to fly. So there should be a vote on where to go from here.

The original referendum was flawed, mostly because no one thought it would pass. They should have negotiated the deal first, and then put it up for a vote. Alternately, the referendum could have clearly stated that there would be a national vote on whatever was negotiated.

And it past with 51.89% voting to leave. Its a technical victory. There's a reason why, in the US Constitution and Congress, several things are decided by a 2/3 majority. Leaving the EU should have been that metric, but it wasn't.

As it is, many Leave voters have said they didn't understand what they were really voting for or the ramifications, and that they thought there was a clean path to breaking away. Now they regret that choice and there isn't popular will to Leave. But the conservatives in the UK are plunging forward when they clearly don't have a good consensus to do so.

Not setting a 2/3 majority to pass was the first of a thousand head scratching decisions the Tories and UKIP clowns made.

In this case, the voters didn't really know what they were voting for. "Brexit" can mean a lot of things. The referendum, for example, didn't mention anything about how to deal with the Irish border. It didn't say "Brexit, which by the way means putting checkpoints along the Irish border".

And that's just one of many details that just voting "leave" or "remain" left out. I doubt even half of the population that voted understood what it actually meant. This isn't a knock on British people, it would be the same in any country. This is why representative democracy is generally favored over direct referendum democracy.

Every 2 years the entire house of representatives must be reconfirmed by another vote. Every 4 years we change or confirm the president. Prohibition got approved by the extremely high bar of adding an amendment and a mere 13 years later that was reversed.

But somehow it's a crime against Democracy if a vague (non-binding, btw) resolution from 3 years ago that won by a slim majority is revoted again today after nobody can agree on the entirely unworkable details.

Nobody's getting asked "again and again". It's just "again" and it's 3 years later with a complete picture of what they're voting on this time.