May finally responds to the suggestion of a second vote, though very badly

Only now, at the 11th hour, does May finally give meaningful responses to criticism of not abiding the result of the referendum. It too her two years, but she finally said something other than "we're leaving". Amazeballs.

Mrs May will say: "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy. Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite voting in favour of a devolved legislature, Parliament knew better and would overrule them. Or else force them to vote again."

Well obviously Owain Glyndwr would rise from his long slumber under the mountains, raise an army of zombie longbowmen and drive the English oppressors back into the sea shouting, "Farwolaeth i'r saesneg !". Or not, because it's Wales and no-one cares. We'd probably have had about 15 people chanting around Cardiff Castle and then six months later everyone would have forgotten the whole thing.

She is to give the example of the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997, when people voted by a margin of 0.3% to create the Welsh Assembly, arguing: "That result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned. Parliament understood this fact when it voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50. And both major parties did so too when they stood on election manifestos in 2017 that pledged to honour the result of the referendum."

The problem is that purpose of the vote matters. Creating a new political institution isn't really comparable to severing economic and political ties with the EU. And with the devolution referenda we knew roughly what we were getting : more politicians and about the same amount of money (barely distinguishable from the then status quo); it was obvious to anyone that the worst-case scenario couldn't possibly be unbearably awful. No such knowledge is possible with Brexit. How people respond does depend on how Parliament acts, but there's more to it than that.

[I would add that this result was so marginal, would anyone really have questioned the need for a second vote ? In the case of a thumping win then sure, repeated votes could certainly be seen as undemocratic. But if the result is marginal, that clearly indicates uncertainty, so further votes should not be unexpected. Of course it's a difficult question as to where precisely one draws the line, but that's exactly what politicians are supposed to deal with.]

"What if we found ourselves in a situation where Parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?"

There's pretty decent evidence that that's exactly what's happening (in the sense of opinion polls showing a preference to remain). Yes, there are hardcore leavers. But hardcore racists will be unhappy come what may (pun intended). Indeed we've already seen the Brexit vote enabling a surge in hate crimes, albeit a brief one. Better to keep the country economically afloat than risk a bunch of racists who suddenly find their stomachs are now half-full.

There isn't any easy path ahead though : if we do stay, we still have to find a way to appease the people who wanted to leave. The referendum told us nothing about the relative strength of feeling on both sides (though the 27% of the electorate who didn't vote suggests at least some degree of apathy).

So we have to deal with the hardcore Brexiteers, Remainers, and the (somewhat) apathetic middle. If we leave, the hardcore Brexiteers will never be happy because now they'll be worse off, and it's unlikely the moderates will stay moderate in that situation. If we stay, the Brexiteers will be even more unhappy but the Remainers will be much happier. I see no reason, however, that in that situation the moderates will stay anything other than moderates. Parliament saying, "we're staying" doesn't have to - and shouldn't - be the same as saying, "Fuck y'all ya bunch of bastards". What it ought to be doing is recognising the damage austerity is doing and rectifying it.

I wish the divorce analogy that's sometimes used was more apt. Then we could have a trial separation : six months of hard Brexit to see what it's like without all the benefits of membership. That'd learn 'em.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46856149