[hnlmorg]

No it's not fitting. You don't make trillion pound economic, social and political decisions based on the whim of a popular vote. At least not unless you have powerful allies in the media and a personal interest to gain. Which is the real crux of the referendum was about. It was never about us regular folk and entirely about the self interests of those in charge. We were just pawns in a much larger game of power.

Let's back that claim up with some examples:

Why the referendum was called in the first place? Cameron never wanted a referendum but did so as an attempt to unify the Conservative party because with the right wing opinions fragmenting between multiple parties the Tories were starting to lose dominance (more parties within a set demographic on a first past the post electoral system means fewer votes for any particular party within that demographic). When the Conservatives had a near monopoly in the centre and right wing policies it meant that left wing parties could never catch up due to how fragmented they are (Green, Labour, SNP, local independents, etc) so left wing voters have always had to vote a little more tactically and go for the party most likely to win in their area and hope for a coalition. So the original goal for the referendum wasn't about addressing European issues but instead about monopolising the right wing vote which was getting fragmented by nationalist parties. Cameron assumed it was an easy win and that he could curb the tide of MPs leaving his party for more nationalistic counterparts. He's even gone on record stating this and how it turned into an epic own goal.

With regards to whether we would have been better off in or out of the EU -- frankly that's one argument I don't want to get drawn into because, frankly, nobody actually knows. Most of the arguments on both sides of the debate were FUD and the most honest point anyone made was "it's complicated and we don't really know for sure."

[aembleton]

All of the parties apart from the SNP promised a referendum in their manifesto. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats had it in theirs for about a decade.

The referendum was advisory, so it would have been possible for parliament to vote not to enact article 50. But parliament voted for it.

[hnlmorg]

> All of the parties apart from the SNP promised a referendum in their manifesto. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats had it in theirs for about a decade.

Not all the parties did. Labour, for example, also didn't. The Greens have always been fiercely pro choice so a referendum falls within their remit and LibDems have often flip flopped around the issue of Europe depending on what seems the most popular alt-vote at the time. Then you have the right wing parties who are naturally nationalistic. But many of the left-wing nationals (like SNP) were pro-Europe.

This is all moot though because my point wasn't who supported the EU but rather the Tories motives for the referendum.

> The referendum was advisory, so it would have been possible for parliament to vote not to enact article 50. But parliament voted for it.

Indeed. But that is another tangential point too. I do have opinions as to why it wasn't treated as an "advisory" vote but those are just opinions so I'll refrain from clouding the debate.

[aembleton]

> I do have opinions as to why it wasn't treated as an "advisory" vote but those are just opinions

I'd like to hear them!

Thanks to your comment I re-checked the Labour party manifesto for the 2015 general election and you are right. They do mention a referendum but only in the case of a transfer of power from Britain to the EU:

"Labour will legislate for a lock that guarantees that there can be no transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union without the consent of the British public through an in/out referendum."