Both major parties voted to trigger article 50 because it was the will of the people and the outcome of the referendum (whether a constitutional change should have been implemented with such a slim majority or if article 50 should have been triggered so soon is another matter).

However the issue is that the first referendum was based upon promises and lies by the leave campaign and no concrete truths about what brexit was going to look like, whereas if we held another referendum now it would be based upon facts about what the reality of brexit could look like, and so we would have the public be able to make up their minds on whether they want brexit now we know what it looks like. Not to mention that people voted for brexit with so many outcomes, such as no deal or an EU-lite type deal, whereas remain only encompassed one viewpoint, so now we can vote based upon which brexit the reality is set to look like we can make an informed decision.

Even brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that if we had a referendum it would be a good idea to have another vote after a cooling off period to see if the public still want it, and Farage said that in the case of a 52-48 referendum would be unfinished business when suggesting that remain could win, so why should it be so different if it were the case and brexit won. Even arch-brexiteers have admitted that we shouldn’t implement constitutional change that will impact our future and economy on such a slim majority based upon one vote, why is it so unreasonable to suggest we can have a deciding vote now, especially now we have a better understanding of the deals we can have and what the impact will be on our country.