You make a number of fair points — and in many ways we are not completely in disagreement — and possibly the nature of our disagreement is over strategy rather than principle. I think you will agree — as your article mentions — that it is perfectly democratically legitimate to try to persuade enough people to have a vote on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. That vote should, in my view, include the right to vote to remain in the EU. You don’t mention this — and that’s a key argument — we don’t know what the outcome of the negotiations will be and there’s a perfectly reasonable case to say we should be able to vote to reject any deal that palpably makes the UK worse off in many different ways (not just financially). Secondly, there are no established rules on referendums — as you know, Denmark and Ireland staged no less than three repeat referendums within a short space of time — and of course the UK’s own 2016 vote was a second referendum on the EU (and reversed its first referendum decision). Who is to say what timetable should be applied to a second referendum? Why shouldn’t there be another one after a few years, and with the fresh information provided from the outcome of the negotiations? There is therefore no rule that says we can’t have another referendum — and voting — and calling for a vote, and using persuasion — are all thoroughly democratic. It should also be pointed out that much of the torrent of abuse that has been directed at remainers who want another vote, contains a central, blatant lie at its heart — that is undemocratic to call for another vote.