[Zigurd]

The real problem is not majoritarianism, or democracy. The problem is that the referendum should have been framed as "Start exit negotiations."

If it's not framed that way, it amounts to buying the outcome of a risky multi-year process with a lot of downside risk and tens of billions in costs sight unseen.

It is not antidemocratic to have a referendum on "Were the negotiations a success?"

Nor does it make sense that if the UK parliament rejects the exit deal that "no deal Brexit" is the only outcome. The UK can withdraw the notification they will exit and remain and continue to negotiate. It adds some lead-time to an eventual exit if that ever makes sense and can be negotiated before the earliest date the UK can leave. But, in no way is it antidemocratic.

[kamaal]

>>The problem is that the referendum should have been framed as "Start exit negotiations."

Very true.

Many people thought voting for `leave` meant making the immigrants leave. They were interviewing people on BBC and people on the streets were approaching non-white people and saying `We voted leave, so you guys leave now.`

The vote should have been framed as `UK should remain in the EU`, `UK should exit the EU`.

That would have probably worked better than framing it as `Should the immigrants remain`, `Should the immigrant leave`.

[tomp]

> The UK can withdraw the notification they will exit and remain and continue to negotiate.

Some EU leaders have eliminated that as an option.

[jimnotgym]

Actually this was being discussed in the ECJ today. The UK most certainly can withdraw article 50 and remain

There is some dispute over whether they can do it unilaterally, but we will find out when the ruling from todays case comes out.