And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.
You speak as if the two questions being voted on are identical. They're not.
The first question was, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in some totally unspecified fashion? The second question will be, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in a no-deal hard exit, since that's the only possibility still on the table? It's no longer an abstract Leave, to which everyone can ascribe all their dreams and wishes; it's now a very specific Leave, with all the faults thereof. That may change the voting somewhat.
And, down the road, if there's another concrete Leave on the table, should the people have another referendum? Sure, why not? There probably won't be a need to vote on the negotiated Leave, though - losing by 230 votes in Parliament is probably enough. And there won't be any need to vote on a hard Brexit a second time, either - if it's voted on in a referendum, it will lose 65-35 or 70-30. (Or so I suspect, but what do I know? I'm not in the UK.)
If you can think of a good reason to do so, maybe. Two and a half years passing, having far more information about the process, and questions about the legality of the leave campaigns seem like perfectly legitimate reasons to hold a second vote before committing to such sweeping, largely-irreversible, constitutional change.
It's not best of 2 - it's a new vote. It supersedes the old one, and when you lose, you don't lose _permanently_ - in any functioning democracy, there's _always_ another vote.
> If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then?
Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum?
Voting isn't wrong.
What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?
It's double jeopardy, there is a case for a fresh vote because new facts (May's deal/No Deal) are present. If there are new facts after this vote (for example a new A50 or similar) then there is the case for another one.
