My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy: Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people.

In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and possibilities of those unforeseen etc.

There was nothing like this with "Leave". Article 50 as a the mechanism by which leave might be initiated was never even mentioned.

Even since the vote there has been all sorts of inferences based on opinion polls about what the "Leave" constituency desire and it has largely been interpreted as "keep the foreigners out" - and that is an interpretation that clearly has no constitutional footing.

Brexit was at best a plebiscite, dressed up as a referendum. There is a mandate for leaving the EU, but there is no prerogative at all for any of the specifics of how that happens nor has there been a robust discussion over what "Leave" even means.

It will be sad to see the UK go and it will be disruptive for many but if that is her will then so be it, but I wouldn't want it to happen before all that are involved get to have their say on what it means.

That the meaning of "Leave" was left so vague was with hindsight reckless. It allowed the leave campaign to bring together all the various differing factions as they could all believe it meant what they wanted it to mean. I can only assume the government was so confident it would win that it went for an option that gave the best soundbite and best opportunity to shut up the euro skeptics in the Conservative party.

Have a look at this https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...

It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated.

Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails.

By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goes some way towards explaining what's going on in the US right now ...

That's the usual modern approach to campaigning, and the one Clinton has been taking. Trump is of course too ill-disciplined and unreliable to manage this kind of clever political triangulation; he just seems to make stuff up. May the best liar win!

The beauty of trump is he has no encumbrances. He can literally say whatever he wants with no consequences. When his analysts tell him "this will really get the yokels going" he can just go ahead and say it. He doesn't have to worry about any spinning plates in the background.

But that's all he is. Just words and bluster. Hillary like her or loath her has substance.

I disagree that remaining was a status-quo option.

Firstly it was 'remain' with Cameron's new package of concessions, not remaining as-is, and it's not like the EU is a static entity.

I think I would have preferred a real in-out referendum, with the 'in' option being really diving in and embracing the whole project.

The "hard remain" option would definitely have lost. The EU is not all that popular even among people who voted remain. Rather like the "oh well, Clinton if I must" voters in the US.

It would have been interesting to see a three-option ballot under runoff voting, but those are completely alien to the UK system.

More's the pity!

For some reason we have to stick with these archaic systems that produce perverse results...

The same reason anybody stays with any archane system: entrenched interests.

No country has ever left the EU so no one knows exactly what it entails. Even the EU documents themselves does not describe the process in detail. It wasn't supposed to happen!

But the question on the ballot was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" and the option "Leave the European Union" won. It is clear that that means invoking Article 50 and begin exit negotiations with the rest of the EU.

There was no real way to define what "Leave" means: clearly it means ceasing to be a member of the European Union, and the only means provided for that is Article 50, but beyond that the UK does not have the power to decide unilaterally what "Leave" means (as it requires coming to an agreement with the Council of Europe), and therefore any referendum in the UK could not decide what "Leave" means.

Begging the question: What exactly does "ceasing to be a member of the European Union" mean?

What I mean is, there was a whole sales pitch during the campaign about what it might mean (e.g. more money for the NHS) which we all found out subsequently to be tosh.

Now we have: "Free trade but not free travel" or something to that effect. Never was such detail ever discussed prior to the referendum.

Downvoted clearly because somebody thinks I misused btq. Read again parent poster clearly assumes the premise.

As the referendum was only advisory in the first place, what the threshold would actually means?

They did, when they called it non-binding. That's what that means.

Only 27% of UK people voted to leave, out of all of them.

The 17 million votes for Leave was the largest vote ever cast in Britain for anything at all in the entire history of the UK. Blair swept to power in 1997 with 13 million votes. The Conservatives got fourteen million in 1992. With 16 million voting for Remain, putting it to the courts was a recipe for confrontation. Nothing has ignited the British people as much as this issue. Big trouble ahead.

There's a view that Trump is but a big "fk you" towards the liberal elite that has drifted too far from the blue-collar folks they have failed to support in dire times. The UK situation would seem to be similar. Thus the key question is "did the elite get the message and can/will they do anything about it?" If yes, the society will go back to normal. If no, the rift widens further as the society is divided into radical camps. Which, by the way, would suit the neo-russian message of "the west is doomed, we are the saviour" message very well.

What can be done about it? Rich people funnel money into making poor people fight amongst themselves, poor working people blame people who get money from the government, and immigrants who are willing to have a lower standard of living, to vote for conservative governments, and the immigrants and unemployed to vote for liberal governments, instead of joining together and getting rid of the rich people taking all the money in the first place.

But even less voted remain. That's the point.

And only 26% voted to remain, out of all of them...