The LibDems' stated policy (as of conference this year) is that if they are elected as majority government, they will revoke. If they do not get enough MPs for majority government, they will campaign hard for People's Vote.

Please change "people's vote" to "second referendum". We already had the first "people's vote" - where the people voted.

@ChrisMelville it's the name of the campaign and so should stay. The original advisory referendum was never referred to as a people's vote, so I've no idea why there would be confusion.

The SNPs position is to accept all referendum results to leave the UK, and reject all those to leave the EU :-P

@Jontia I'd put it in quotation marks myself, but I think the fact you've capitalised it is clear enough that it's a noun.

@Displayname perhaps someone should get on and regularise the understanding of what Right to Self Determination actually means. At least with a defined process then that sort of agitation could be channelled and legally understood.

@Displayname it's an interesting hypothesis, though as far as I'm aware the only real pressure for having an EU referendum came from within the Tory party itself. Obviously the result had wider support, but I don't recall seeing any evidence of people caring about it spiking in the wake of the Scottish referendum. But I'd be interested to see any relevant data.

@Jontia to be clear, I agree that the Tory party eurosceptism put it in their manifesto, but I believe that the fact a referendum had been allowed to potentially break up the UK made it exponentially harder to consider saying 'no'. Of course the Tories own anti-EU branch, the fact the predecessor to the Lisbon treaty had been voted on by other countries and the success of anti-eu parties in EU elections had inputs of various sizes. I honestly believe the Euro, and the resultant two-speed Europe also was an underlying cause.

@ChrisMelville Please change “second referendum” to “third referendum”. We’ve already had two referendums on this issue, in 1975 and 2016.

@MikeScott - Very true! In 1975 they voted "in". In 2016 we voted "out". By rights, we should leave now; then hold a third referendum in 40 years, in case we changed our minds.

@ChrisMelville The majority in 1975 was overwhelming, so there was no need to re-run it for decades -- there was little likelihood that the people would have changed their minds. The majority in 2016 was tiny, so it should be re-run now, because the result may well have changed.

@MikeScott, one could also note that population turnover is now higher than the majority. At what point does a referendum result go stale?

@Separatrix at the same point it becomes advisory?

@ChrisMelville The term "people's vote" is used in a different sense than the term "first referendum" or "second referendum". The first referendum was an in/out referendum. The "people's vote" is a vote on whether or not to accept the deal on offer (or remain) and "people's" refers to the distinction between allowing the people, rather than MPs, to vote on the deal. A "second referendum" would be simply a repeat of the first (i.e. in/out) as opposed to voting on a specific deal.

@Separatrix In my opinion, the results of a referendum are valid until the next vote which includes the same issue. If an election is called while Brexit is still an unresolved issue, the results of the election should overrule the results of the referendum.

@Displayname Getting back to your first wry comment... It is False Equivalence to imagine Scottish Independence (Indy) is the same as Brexit. Indy is driven by the fact that Scotland is ignored in the UK (google Thatcher Years for details). The EU is a partnership of equals that gives great weight to small countries (see Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Baltics, etc.) It is entirely logical to be pro-Indy and pro-EU.

@JBentley - We already had an in-out referendum, and that resulted in an "out" vote. Any further referendum which allowed the option of deal or no-deal would be logical: but that's not what the so-called "people's vote" [sic] campaigners want. The people using this term are remainers who refuse to accept the vote to leave in the first place. They want "remain" to be an option on the ballot, even though the 2016 referendum has not yet been respected. So "people's vote" is actually a loaded term, where remainers try to pretend that the 2016 vote was somehow not a vote of the people.

@ChrisMelville you mean like "clean break", "overwhelming mandate", "unambiguous will of the people" or even "advisory referendum" are loaded terms? Lets not try to pretend only one side is guilty of manipulating language to frame the arguments.

The 2016 referendum has been respected by spending 3 years trying to fulfil it. That it can't be fulfilled is the fault of the ERG who voted against delivering it 3 times.