Wow. OK, there's a lot here but a few thoughts...
If you are a hardcore remoaner, you'll go with the lying ilLiberal unDemocrats.
One of my Remainer friends is planning to do just that.
Personally, I won't because although I'm a Remainer I don't agree with the Lib Dems' policy of revoking Article 50. The referendum result was what it was and no government should just ignore that. Legally they can - referendums are advisory - but there would be riots and it would lead to further disillusionment with our system.
So we fuck up every other election from now until we die until they deliver the thing we voted for in 2016. I'll vote UKIP, Brexit party, Monster raving looney party, independent, whatever is tactical and hurts the main parties the most until Brexit is done. In local elections, European elections, general elections, referendums ...
But you're not hurting the main parties, are you? Because none of those tiny parties are going to get any MPs, or not enough to make a difference. One of the main parties is still going to form a government and you'll have had no say in which.
That would pretty much be the BSOD for our democracy. I think at that point the head of the armed forces needs to march into Westminster and give our democracy a hard reset. I think back to 1653 the last time Parliament started doing whatever it wanted
Ah, the old "another referendum would be undemocratic" argument.
Just have a think about what you're saying. Another
vote would be undemocratic.
Where in the democracy rulebook does it say that once a vote is taken the result stands for all time? You know it doesn't say that because you say elsewhere:
And once every 5 years they vote and place sovereignty in the hands of representatives to run the country for them.
Exactly. You don't just have an election and that party stays in power for perpetuity.
Public mood can change, so you have regular elections to reflect that.
Now, a fairly reasonable argument against what I've just said is that when the result of an election is known you don't immediately have another vote to check, the winning party forms a government. But the problem here is the length of time between the Referendum and the delivery of its outcome. A lot has happened in those 3 years, a lot more is known about the potential deal we might get with the EU. There are indications that we might well get a different result now. Is a narrow majority of a one off snapshot of public opinion 3 years ago really a sound basis for taking a long term course of action?
Before the referendum Farage said that a 52/48 split to Remain would be "unfinished business". That was the result to Leave and now it's "You lost, get over it".
However, parliament has decided to ignore what the very people who placed them there want them to do.
Except they haven't, have they? It's pretty much all they've been working on.
They triggered Article 50, they've been working on what our future relationship with the EU looks like. They even got an agreement with the EU about that despite all our red lines, and theirs, which seemed almost impossible to reconcile.
The problem is there is no concensus either in parliament - or amongst the population - about what Brexit looks like. The referendum wasn't voting for anything, it was voting
against something. The analogy I always use is it was like voting to move house with no plan about where to move to. I'm guessing you want a hard Brexit. But the last poll I saw suggested that about two thirds of Leavers want that, about a third of people in total.
What Leave meant in detail was not articulated at the time of the referendum.
The only way I see out of this mess is another in/out referendum and a second question about if out is to win do you want No Deal or Boris's Deal (or whatever mess Corbyn comes up with, if he's elected, which he won't be).
Then just bloody get on with it.