Not really, there was Labour against the EU, and obviously a lot of Euroskeptic Torys, but I don't remember any Lib Dems being for an exit.

Also, if they have a manifesto that includes 'remaining in the EU' and win a majority at an election, that is a democratic mandate to remain in the EU. A second referendum would arguably be more democratic, but either is democratic.

Its not undemocratic to overturn a referendum, if you do so in a manner that fulfils legal democratic due process. Now I don't agree with the idea, but its not hypocrisy, or wrong or undemocratic.

Hypocrisy is supporting only the democratic processes that you agree with, when they go your way.

And I very much doubt UKIP would have just 'given up and gone home' if they'd lost by a similar margin.

The referendum has happened, the result was to leave, the people instructed the government to do this. There was no mention of further referendums or of disputing or manipulating the result.

You have to deal with this. Saying matters are 'perfectly reasonable' maybe so in your mind but would was decided was decided.

Facts are ignored in this day and age stuk says I'm not allowed to usePost-Truth

Hold on a minute.... the original referendum in 1975 which resulted in us joining what was the common market was accepted in good grace by those who lost the vote!

Since then the previously innocuous common market has become the EU federal state.

If anything has been achieved by "preposterous lies" then surely that is what has happened to the UK with our enforced membership of the EU. No one in 1975 envisaged 300,000+ EU citizens arriving in the UK each and every year causing such hardship to communities with ghettos, lack of housing, schools, hospitals, etc.

As you said the ballot paper was self explanatory.... you voted to remain or leave.

Leave won this time, so just like in 1975, the losers should suck it up and accept that democracy has determined our departure from the EU.

No legal challenge, no 2nd referendum to ratify terms, no Parliamentary debate.

Brexit means Brexit now is just the same as our joining the common market in 1975 followed the people's voting decision.

I was disappointed in 1975, but I accepted it. Please have the courtesy and respect to accept the country's decision now.

But if your objection is that in 1975 the government (and successive governments) implemented the verdict in a way that didn't reflect the public mood, why would you object to a referendum to check they're actually "doing Brexit right" this time?

Take the issue of immigration. It's clear from the level of immigration from outside the EU that has taken place after Cameron's tens of thousands promise that somewhere the government has realised it can't actually reduce immigration without damaging the economy.

Now lets assume that whatever compromise that is reached between closing our borders and free movement from Europe, the projected net immigration figure remains around a quarter of a million a year after article 50 is triggered. Or worse, imagine if free movement is completely unaffected!

In that situation, with Farage/Nuttall saying that UKIP don't agree with the deal, Lib Dems saying they don't agree, Labour saying they don't agree and millions of leave voters up in arms, could you not see some merit in the country being given a veto option for the proposed deal? Or would you rather May implements a deal hardly anyone actually wants?

The government should not have had a referendum if they weren't going to abide by the result.

Those who support the use of "small print" and court rulings to over turn it need to think about what they are really supporting.
A Parliamentary system that can do what ever they please, against the wishes of the majority in an electoral system where the winning party achieves it's victory by creating a manifesto of lies and false promises.
So through this political power struggle,(Cameron thought he was on a winner) we had a single opportunity to have our say, and now some of us support the politically motivated effort to have it revoked.

Be careful what you wish for. Those scum bags in Westminster will stop at nothing to perpetuate their careers and influence and will be very happy to see the gullible cheer them on.

The government should not have had a referendum if they weren't going to abide by the result.

Those who support the use of "small print" and court rulings to over turn it need to think about what they are really supporting.
A Parliamentary system that can do what ever they please, against the wishes of the majority in an electoral system where the winning party achieves it's victory by creating a manifesto of lies and false promises.
So through this political power struggle,(Cameron thought he was on a winner) we had a single opportunity to have our say, and now some of us support the politically motivated effort to have it revoked.

Be careful what you wish for. Those scum bags in Westminster will stop at nothing to perpetuate their careers and influence and will be very happy to see the gullible cheer them on.

The second referendum and judicial stuff is just a red herring being used to stoke up righteous anger and sell newspapers. Neither the courts nor the second referendum would reverse Brexit, they would just dictate whether we have a parliamentary vote which is bound to pass comfortably anyway and give the opportunity to the public to reject a deal they might not like formulated after they signed a bit of a blank cheque.

The politicians want Brexit which is not Brexit so everyone can claim victory.
Only a minority are pro Brexit.

We have to send them a strong message about what backtracking will mean for them.

Public order offences?