[zigzigzag]

The direction of the nation is decided by less than a majority in every vote. So why would this one in particular require "special measures"?

I think what you're getting at here is you support the EU, so would prefer if attempts to leave it or defy it were harder to implement than normal decisions.

[pjbster]

My level of support for the EU is neither here or there but I do get really irate when my country's PM presumes to act according to "the will of the people". We simply don't really know whether that's true or not and I think it'd be nice to find out (somehow).

[gambiting]

Even if remain won, I would still like to see at least 2/3 majority requirement for such an important vote. I don't mind simple majority for periodically repeating votes(parliamentary elections) but decisions which are almost irreversible or which have deep and long-lasting consequences(leaving/joining EU, going to war, breaking up the United Kingdom, changing constitution) should have a 2/3 majority requirement.

[zigzigzag]

And how about if the vote had been phrased as "do you wish to remain in the EU", with a 2/3rd requirement to meet the bar, meaning 1/3rd was sufficient to trigger Brexit? Would that have seemed fair?

Democracy evolved as a shortcut to avoid fights. Just count and you got a rough idea of which side has the most people and thus, is more likely to win if it came down to it. Once you start tipping the threshold in order to bias things towards your preferred decisions, you increase the risk of the losing side thinking ... wait a minute. We could win this. That's far worse than any other outcome.

The EU and its supporters constantly warp the system to try and make it hard for people to leave, hard for the people to reject their policies. It is fundamentally undemocratic.

[gambiting]

Well, if you look at all the things I mentioned in my post, they have one thing in common - they are votes to change something, not to keep it the same. To continue with my example, why should the vote be "do you want to go to war" and not "do you want to not go to war"? Because the current state is not being at war, so I'd argue you need an overwhelming support to actually go to war, since it's not a lightweight decision.

>>The EU and its supporters constantly warp the system to try and make it hard for people to leave, hard for the people to reject their policies. It is fundamentally undemocratic.

Well......I guess it's because I want to see a federal europe with all nations united into one, so of course I don't want people to leave the union. But as we are seeing now, they can. What's more, I truly believe that every EU country can reject any policy they want, what are the consequences of doing that, really? Look at Poland, Hungary - their governments are powering ahead with populist nationalist policies which are firmly against EU laws and policies, and what does EU do? They send a strongly worded warning, saying there may be sanctions. I don't think the Polish government cares - they will serve their entire term without any repercussions other than making a lot of enemies in neighbouring countries.

As for fundamentally undemocratic.....is there any country in the world which is "fundamentally democratic"? Literally no country has democracy as it was first implemented in Greece, and in most countries around the world most votes != win, just like Trump won despite not receiving the majority of votes, just like in UK the party that receives majority of votes means nothing since all that counts is seats.......we implement "democracy" in various forms all the time. So why would seat-based parliament be a democracy, but 2/3 majority requirement not?