When to revisit democratic consensus

Two years ago the UK had voted to leave the EU. Now hundred-thousand people demand a new referendum. This raises the question of when to revisit a vote and the scope of a referenda.

Basic democratic principles state that no agreement can be valid for longer than the time of one generation. Otherwise the majority of affected people have not voted on the agreement and therefore it is impossible to claim it would be democratic.

But following the same logic, it is self-evident that even after one year, some of the people that were not yet allowed to vote at that time, now could vote and did not agree. The question becomes how many people are okay to be neglected in a democratic process.

In fact, there are also people that do not even want to participate in democracy (out of moral issues, political disinterest, ...). Is it okay to also decide for them? What is the percentage of the total population that legitimises you to rule over them all? How many can you ignore and still be "democratic"?

Morally it seems clear that nobody has the right to rule over others that were not voluntarily involved in the decision making. In democracy you always have to violate somebody's rights, or you are entirely unable to act as each decision has to be modified each week according to the current sentiment of the population.

The question is not weather it is morally justified to repeat the Brexit vote, it is weather democracy is actually moral. The answer is a clear no. Nobody has the right to decide for others, not for the youth, not for the disillusioned, not for the political enemy. You only choose for yourself, so instead of asking about making another brexit vote just ask the actual meaningful question concerning Europe. Are you going to stay on your island this summer, or are you going to Europe for the holidays. That is a question that you have the sufficient authority to answer and you are not overreaching the natural scope of your decisions.