You're missing the point again. It doesn't matter who voted what in ref1, no one was properly informed because no accurate information was available to either side, just guesswork and unsubstantiated claims. I voted remain, but I didn't feel it was in any sense an informed choice. At the time, I could make an argument for both choices, but there was very little in the way of hard facts to base a decision on. Neither side can make that excuse now, whatever the result of ref2. Of course, until we actually leave (or not), no one can say with 100% certainty what the effect will be, but the situation now is surely a sight more easier to assess than it was three years ago. As someone on this thread (you?) said, in 2016 everyone voted for their own idea of leave/remain. That was because hyperbole and conjecture were all we had to go on. The choice in ref2 would be a lot easier to make, because we all now know the likely consequences of leaving. If the majority still decide to leave, then so be it, but let the electorate make a decision based on informed prediction rather than speculation and self-serving propaganda.
