I guess the referendum had 2 specific options, in theory at least (I'll come back to that though), whereas the MPs vote was to accept May's deal or not, without a specific alternative. Meaningful vote 3 will have an alternative of sorts - delay and rethink. Therefore, I don't there should be any excuse for a meaningful vote 4 without a general election first.

On that first point, there is a case that Leave begged the questions 'go where?' and 'how?', and so it gives the impression of offering a clear direction initially but then, as you approach the door you realise it is pretty limited.

The problem is/was that Leave could only win by offering a very broad image of what Brexit could be, but the reality of what it will be has to be much narrower and so inevitably has narrower appeal.

Although you may be right, I think the failure of May's deal thus far has more to do with different factions in the Tory Party getting ready for life after May (Mrs), coupled with the lack of a parliamentary majority.
IF the "strong and stable" election had produced the Tory majority that May had hoped for and had not there been a high court challenge to ensure the meaningful vote, we would definitely have been leaving.
As far as a second referendum goes, it just wont solve anything.
There is NOTHING to suggest that opinions have changed significantly since the first vote and most peoples views have become more entrenched, which would ensure a more embittered campaign and deeper divisions in an already divided nation.

Bang on the money, people playing politics when tbey should be voting the way their constituents want.

I don’t want another referendum of any sort. Though, as we have seen, saying what you don’t want is easier for everybody than saying what you do want.

However, I do think a confirmatory referendum on May’s deal would be interesting. Which isn’t necessarily the same as desirable. While Leave won a majority, I don’t think there’s a majority for any particular type of Brexit. The majority of leavers prefer a WTO max-brexit, whereas, if forced to choose, most remainers would go for something like Norway, I imagine. May’s deal sits, widely unloved in polarised Britain, somewhere between them - though much closer to the former, imo. It’s something we could unite behind in mutual disappointment. However, I do think brexiters have to take ownership of it - they’ve got most of what they wanted and what isn’t there is down to reality rather than anything remotely resembling compromise. As a remoaner, i’m entitled to moan - it’s my loser’s consolation and constitutional right, duty even, to blame everything on the ‘failed Brexit experiment’ from April onwards, so I can’t do it for them!

Tbf, ballers gonna ball.

Also, to this point, voting in line with their constituents wishes wouldn’t have delivered a majority because too many options remained on the table.

No deal, May’s deal, Labour’s suggested deal du jour, another referendum - all have only minority support.

Only now it has narrowed down to two choices (if you can even call delay a choice) is a majority feasible. For better or worse, May has run down the clock. It stinks a bit, but maybe it was the only way.

Nice one John!

That's put the cat among the pigeons.

The results of the referendum were not announced according to Westminster constituencies, but by local authority area.

I do like John Bercow - and I can't say that about many Tories.

For a bit of light relief, Google him singing the ascending major scale of Jeremy Corbyn...

Shouldn't matter, a constituency MP should know, and follow, the voters wishes.

But it's OK, you'd have anyone who disagrees with you and Komrade Corbyn in the salt mines.

Hasn't it just, we will now have to come up with something to warrant the EU agreeing to an extension to article 50.