[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?