I'd like to see the three options written down and the voting system explained in minute detail.
It wouldn't be fair or right to make further comment on it until then.
The way parliament is at the moment I couldn't even guess how long it would take them to formulate the ballot paper to general or majority satisfaction but it is a possibility that needs a good coat of looking at, although currently there doesn't seem to be a will in parliament to sanction another referendum. Obviously that could change.

I like the cut of this journalist's jib.

"Britain’s Commons can never again trumpet itself as the “mother of parliaments”. It is more an old bag lady mumbling oaths on a street corner. The reason is that it is still enacting procedures designed for the polarised tribalism of the 18th century. It ritualises partisanship and disagreement. It dares not unite. This is how nations drift to war. Their leaders strut the corridors of power, puffing up their chests and calling down the wrath of gods on their foes. Verbal knives outnumber handshakes.

It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.

Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do."

As for Montpoolier, all he can say is that if the Brexit comedy results in this kind of self-questioning, at least it will not have been pointlesss.

You could look at my point that way or you could look at it another.

Say The Grange scenario and the vote taken by the drinkers was a couple of years ago when the referendum was held and everyone voting to stay there was doing so on the basis of what it was then rather than what it could or proposes to become in the future, would they be committing based upon knowing all of the facts or possibilities?

I was with you till you started referring to yourself in the third person A career as a boxer or a rapper beckons.

On the subject of narrow margins, when the French people were given a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (the one that turned the Common Market into a political union), the French voted to stay in by a margin of 51%-49%. Of course, the French government and parliament were only too happy with the result, so that was the end of the matter. As Cameron/Osborne would have been with a 51:49 split in favour of Remain.

It's a clear margin of victory - as long as the Establishment sees it that way.

He was talking about the other Montpoolier wann'e.

The principle of hysteresis, the damping of potentially wild swings, is just as valid in popular opinion as in science.
When you are talking about a major disruption of the status quo, a bit more of an edge is usually required. That's why most countries require a supermajority for constitutional about-turns.
In the case of the French vote, I'm not sure how it was worded. If it was between Maastricht and Frexit, both paths would have led to constitutional change (or reversal), suggesting the question was a load of bollocks in the first place.
The French government should have heeded the vote as a wake-up call, which I can't remember whether it did or not (although I can guess).