[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

If there's anything that's inherently undemocratic it's ignoring the first vote because the remain camp is very loud.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what's actually happening, though. The issue wasn't considered for long enough (or really, at all) before the first vote was called... there should have been at least the outline of a "roadmap to Brexit" before the first referrendum, and the whole thing has been an absolute shambles. If there are clear indications that public opinion has shifted in a meaningful way, then of course polling that is democratic? If there hasn't been a shift in public opinion then a second poll will only reflect that. At the end of the day, for the final decision to be democratic, all that really matters is that the will of the people is followed to the best of the government's knowledge. In fact... continuing with Brexit because of the previous poll - knowing that there's a possibility that that poll no longer represents the population - is quite undemocratic.

Now if it became a case of "poll after poll until people get the outcome they want", or holding a second poll when nothing has changed, then I definitely agree that it would be undemocratic... but that's really not the case here. A lot more information is available, a lot has changed in the 18 months since the referendum, there IS reason to believe that the desires of the public may have changed, and the only responsible choice for an elected government (in my opinion) is to at least be sure before making vast changes.

If it's still Brexit then fine. In fact, even if it's "too close to call" (say 51% remain) I would say it's probably right to still forge ahead with the plans, but if a second poll came up 60-40 for remain? Then Brexit is obviously not what the British people want.