So now democracy isn't 50% plus 1, it is now 60%.

And you keep having votes until you get the outcome you want....

That's democracy?

in such a profound way on the basis of a simple majority vote rather than a supermajority was an incredibly stupid idea.

There's a reason the USA requires 38 state legislatures to agree before the Constitution can be amended.

You cant decide you dont like the vote than change the requirements.

England is leaving the EU. They will be fine. The EU will be fine.

and, not until there's an Article 50 notification (the referendum was advisory, not binding, and has no legal standing).

That seems to be your attitude.

And that is exactly the reason people are voting for against the establishments all over Europe and even in the US. They are tired of elitists acting as if they are smarter than everyone else.

My attitude is "fuck the old people who decided to screw everyone else by voting to leave" (the largest majority for "Leave" was among over-65's, who represented a sufficient share of the electorate to swing the decision). I live in the UK; I have to live with the consequences of Brexit first-hand, and I am not especially pleased that something this important was decided by a handful of votes from people who'll be dead soon anyway and to whom the result can't matter.

Suck on that.

on any Prop on the ballot that deals with any financial changes it takes 60% to pass.

So, you're all cool about the financial melt down from this bullshit vote?

If this shit stands, I hope Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK and the fucking Trump like bigots that voting for this shit.

you know the rule going in because the rule is set before going into the vote.

The same should have happened here, but changing the rule after the vote is ridiculous, IMO.

One bad day or even a few bad days on the stock market does not equal a financial meltdown.

vote. The majority won - as I'm reminded here on Du often.

And some things that are up for a vote require 60% for a reason.

Read the fucking treaty. It says nothing about 60% needed. Maybe they should have done that when they wrote the rules. But you can't change the rules of a game when the game is over. It doesn't work that way.

And the EU is not a sovereign state. Any EU nation has the option to leave whenever they want...Article 50 I believe it is.

Your 50% + 1 means rural England and Wales have dictated London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland's futures. 60% would have required much more of Scotland, most of London, and quite a bit more of Northern Ireland to agree before making such a significant decision. Frankly, now that the Leave camp has admitted lying through their teeth about their promises and case for leaving the EU, the UK should get another chance.

I don't know what it is, if it's just the faux-progressive EU neoliberalism argle bargle, some paranoid Agenda 21/black helicopter fear of supranational organizations, some sympathy towards the bigots in UKIP, or any combination of the above, but you're making an absolute joke of your own argument. The referendum is non-binding, and Parliament is entirely free to call for another one if they feel the need to do so--especially in the wake of the sterling falling through the floor. It's ridiculous in the face of the UK's history with the EU--they had to apply multiple times to even be allowed entry.

So Britain had a vote, then you want them to have a re-vote to make sure Brexit is what they want? So what happens when Leave wins 1 vote and remain wins 1 vote. Do we have a tie-breaker or something? Or do we keep having re-votes until you get the outcome you want?

You seem to have a pretty odd idea of democracy. The vote is only valid when the outcome is what you want. And you want it to be 60% in order to go against what you want.

Parliament is not going to call for another vote. It's political suicide. Cameron has already resigned.

Look...Britain is leaving. Globalism just got its fat ass kicked. That's reality. Learn to live with it.

It's decided by the Electoral College, which makes it a case where simple majority vote doesn't dictate the outcome of an election.

You're cheering on the rise of nationalism and fascism in Europe, the likely disintegration of the United Kingdom, destruction of British millenials' futures, a possible global recession, worsening of the London housing crisis and screwing British retirees who took advantage of open borders to retire to less expensive locales on the continent, due to a decision made on the basis of xenophobia, racism, and, as we've discovered since Farage opened his mouth after the vote, blatant lies, because of some perceived victory against "globalism" (a term which is so overused and vague it might as well be meaningless, just like neoliberal).

the referendum on an EU constitution failed, being defeated in France and the Netherlands; the proposed EU constitution was rejiggered into the Treaty of Lisbon, on which no country held a referendum except Ireland (where it was defeated, and then reintroduced in a SECOND referendum with promises that Irish neutrality and Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion wouldn't be affected, which passed).

I tend to agree with it. Regarding the UK I agree with, they need to follow the rules they set. But are you arguing that everything should be decided by a simple majority of voters? If 50.1% of Texans voted to leave the US we should let them? I'm certainly glad the US is a democratic republic because a pure democracy would be a nightmare.

And of course which right-wing arsehole becomes PM...

Don't kid yourself, this is over. The entire country gets to suffer because Cameron had to promise the bigots in his party he'd have a referendum if he won the general election last year.

Thanks Dave, you will go down as one of the worst PM's in history, and yes, I remember Tony fucking Blair...