> Mainstream politicians have learned their lesson, which is never offer up such a dumb referendum to their electorate

Not if "non-mainstream" politicians win election. Not unlikely at all at this moment.

What you simply push aside as a dumb referendum because you do not agree with it, is silly considering your thoughts are not an accurate reflection of the issues with the EU and polling of its members.

>Polls recently conducted in Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Hungary also showed that these countries could follow Britain if it succeeds in leaving the EU. Euroskeptic politicians in these countries have been adding fuel to the fire, stepping up their calls for EU-exits in light of the British referendum.

On Wednesday, French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen stressed that France should have its own ‘Frexit’ vote.

“What I'm asking for is a referendum in France. Every EU member should be able to have its say in a referendum,” the National Front leader told France's TF1 television. A March poll by the University of Edinburgh found that 53 percent of the French are in favor of a referendum on leaving the Union.

30% of Germans want to quit EU as support for Merkel’s govt. drops below 50% While a YouGov poll in May, commissioned by Handelsblatt newspaper, found that 29 percent of Germans would leave the EU if a referendum was to take place. Only 54 percent of those living in the country supported staying in the bloc.

The mood is reportedly the same in the Netherlands, with a February opinion poll finding that 53 percent of Dutch citizens want a 'Nexit' referendum. Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch right-wing, populist PVV party, currently topping opinion polls, openly expressed hopes a ‘Nexit’ could follow a ‘Brexit.’ https://www.rt.com/viral/348039-brexit-eu-referendum-domino/

Labeling the referendum as dumb is IMHO accurate, not because of the outcome, but because of the way it was done. It takes an extremely complex matter and puts it into an simple yes no questions without discussing the consequences. What does it even mean to leave the EU? A lot of leave voters seemed to take it as stopping immigration, which will not happen (since a lot of immigration is coming from outside the EU and freedom of movement with EU states will likely not be removed).

In comparision, the Scotish referendum was more detailed and got a lot more debate. The blog article "Brexit was a con" explains that in the first part: https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c...

And how would you do it?

There was plenty of discussion of the consequences, heck, the remain campaign focused more or less ONLY on the consequences of the EU's economic retaliation.

Leaving the EU will absolutely allow immigration to be pushed down, though likely not to the "tens of thousands per year" figure that seems to have been arbitrarily chosen simply because that'd result in too many very useful and in-demand people being excluded. But the type of immigration that has caused so much malcontent in the regions can absolutely be close to eliminated, i.e. poor unskilled workers coming from eastern Europe and undercutting the wages of the locals.

Are you asking how I would do the referendum? Certainly not with a 16 page manifesto and basically asking "Wanna leave the EU?" It should have included considerations what would happen with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Gibraltar.

How will leaving the EU push immigration down? As I pointed out, a good deal of immigration coming from outside the EU. And the EU part will probably not be affected by Brexit either, because free movement is tied to free trade. Or do you think that the UK will give up free trade with the EU?

Free trade and free movement are unrelated, as evidenced by the fact that the EU is trying to sign free trade deals with Canada and the United States. It's only countries geographically in Europe that are told they must accept both or neither.

The EU will either sign a free trade deal with the UK of some sort (possibly not as free as within the single market), or it will simply fuel its own collapse.

Actually, you and the parent are not quite right on the free trade issue v movement of people issue. It is the single market in services that is tied to notions of free movement of people. The free trade and restrictions on movement of people is not controversial.

Thanks for the correction.

It was a dumb referendum because it pitted a specific, known option (remain in the EU) against a complete unknown. The unknown option won by cobbling together a coalition of several different, mutually exclusive agendas (some of which were/are based on fantasies, like the EU giving the UK free access to the common market while choosing which regulations it would follow), thus guaranteeing that there's probably no conceivable exit deal that more than 20% of the country (certainly nowhere near 52%) would be happy with, and even more than 80% will be unhappy with the one that is eventually negotiated.

You don't have to be pro-EU to see this as a bad way to run a country (although it helps).

The "complete unknown" is not actually unknown. Just look at any country that is not in the EU.

The exact details of a relationship post-Brexit are impossible to know because the EU refuses to even contemplate such a possibility, let alone discuss it. That's a problem of their own creation however, and that attitude is exactly what has stoked the fires of euroscepticism across the continent. You can sometimes put off reality by denying it, but not forever.

> The "complete unknown" is not actually unknown. [...] The exact details of a relationship post-Brexit are impossible to know.

I'm confused. Do you agree or disagree with zb that the referendum pitted a well known against a complete unknown?

Not knowing every detail does not make something a "complete unknown".

I don't know why people are downvoting you - there certainly is a danger from far right politicians. Personally I don't see it actually happening (especially given the negative example from Brexit), but it's a possibility.

I think people only read the first sentence of most posts, and your first sentence is wrong -- everything about this referendum was dumb.

It was dumb to have the referendum in the first place. Cameron had it in order to try to resolve an internal Tory party dispute.

It was dumb to have a 50:50 threshold. A massive constitutional change should require a supermajority.

The arguments (on all sides) were largely lies.

And the outcome won't even be what anyone wants. The leavers won't get what they voted for. Almost everyone will be shafted.

I don't think it was dumb to have a referendum. I think a lot of the problems with the European project stem from perception that folk at the top are pulling a fast one over their populations - people should decide when the basis of their government changes. But the circumstance by which the referendum came about was farcical.

I don't disagree with the rest of what you say, but I would add that a government that puts together a referendum that is not a foregone conclusion, that does not prepare for an adverse decision, is incompetent and negligent enough to be considered criminal.