There's no choice now because the choice was then. 50% is enough uncertainty, or the threshold for staying should have been set higher than 50%, on the grounds that staying is harder to undo than leaving. It's not symmetrical.
That makes no sense as a reply to my post. The first sentence is just paraphrasing what I said, more-or-less. The second sentence is simply false - staying is much easier to undo than leaving.
Edit - I mean, a changing of mind about staying would involve staying in for a bit longer, _then_ leaving. Which is quite obviously less work and disruption than the reverse, which would involve going through the long-drawn out leaving process, and then going through an equally long-drawn out rejoining process. Your stance is clearly nonsense.
And there _is_ a case that the question wasn't asked correctly in the first place, in that the specifics of what leaving meant were not spelt out. But I do think a second vote is not going to happen, so I suppose the least-bad outcome would be a 'soft Brexit' that did at least win some very minor gains over things like free-movement in return for losing a political say over the EU's direction.
Also the EU may yet fall apart anyway making it all moot in the end.
Last edited: