1. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened, the UK voted to leave, and so the majority of MPs respected the will of the people and voted the bill through.

2. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met, I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people never said they wanted.

3. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what promise UKIP made you're referring to.

It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in the EU after the result of the referendum.

I think parent was referring to the "let's fund our NHS" idea... The one on the big bus.

In my opinion the referendum was too simple to mean much. So much about leaving was not known. When a concrete deal is proposed and the terms and consequences are more clear, I think the public should have another vote on whether that specific deal passes muster. Leave voters surely did not all intend "leave in any way possible no matter what the conditions".

I think much about remaining was not known either. One thing that was clear was that a vote to remain was not a vote for the status quo.

But sure, it would have been nice to have been provided with more detail on what sort of Brexit we'd have. Perhaps the government at the time could have given greater clarity regarding that. Although, given the fact the government underwent a massive reshuffle, and the fact that the UK still has to negotiate terms with the EU, it might have been rather a challenge.

I agree it would have a been a challenge, if not impossible, to truly give details on the meaning of Leave before those details were negotiated. The Leave vote has of course put the UK on the path to a specific deal. Does enough of the public want to pull the trigger on a specific deal that it would survive another vote is an interesting question to me.

I wasn't really close to this one (Irish, and living abroad at that) but I'm surprised to hear that Remain was not a vote for, approximately, the status quo.

What was unknown about remaining?

For one thing, how much further the "ever closer union" would go. There had already been chattering about an EU army, and it was only until after the referendum vote went through that we got concrete details on it. There was also the prospect of other countries joining the EU. Was that going to happen or not? We simply didn't (and still don't) know.

I suspect the promise was spending £350M on the NHS after Brexit, which everyone was quick to backpedal from as soon as the vote went through

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...

Well, that was Vote Leave, not UKIP. And in fact, the pledge wasn't to spend the entire £350 million on the NHS, but part of it. The government is still looking to do just that, but it can't until we've actually left the EU (we're still paying them money).

I'm struggling to read the small print, fam. Can you help me out? http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png

"Let's fund the NHS instead" doesn't mean spending the entire amount. I don't think anyone seriously expected all the money to be used to fund the NHS.

Sure, the message written on the bus could have gone into more detail, but it would be a bit ridiculous to put small print on the side of a bus. The point is to have a short, snappy message that quickly gets a point across and can be read from a distance. Further details were available from the website, on leaflets, etc..

Here's another poster, does this clarify what the actual intent was behind that message?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905...

That poster was worded horribly and was not correct. It does not represent what the pledge was. However, whenever representatives from Vote Leave were questioned about the pledge, they were always very clear they meant spending a portion of the £350 million on the NHS, not the entire amount.

I do wish that poster had been worded better. I'm sure it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to mislead.

I'm sure they could have simply corrected the amount and not waste any space with 'small print'.

But hey, anything goes when there are votes to be gotten, who cares about facts and accuracy anyway?

The amount is correct — it's the gross amount we send to the EU. Perhaps it would have been simpler to just put the net amount — £250 million — which is still a huge amount. Even if they did that, though, people would claim they were promising to spend the entire £250 million on the NHS, which would not be correct either.

Whatever the pledge was, people would have nitpicked and claimed it was a lie. There's no way to succinctly provide enough details on the side of a bus to satisfy everyone.

Judean People's Front, People's Front of Judea

Your argument about democracy is based on the views of an unelected legislator, belonging to the party that less than two years ago demonstrated the biggest nationwide drop in popularity in modern British political history, in large part due to a loss of credibility after going back on a manifesto pledge once in power? I'm not sure he's any more qualified to comment on this subject than you or me. If anything, the reverse is true.

In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me.

The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions.

The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO.

We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.

    > Democracy is not simply about
    > following the rule of the 50%

The population has had 300-350 years to let it bed in, and the politicians the same amount of time to learn their jobs; much as the result upsets me, it's not like it's something particularly new.

> 2. the referendum in was >2/3, while the referendum out was barely >50%, you need a supermajority threshold on such a long-term issue where the opinion can swing bellow/above 50%

There never was a referendum to join, there was a referendum to join a very different thing that evolved into the EU, don't pretend they're the same thing.

It doesn't matter how many votes there are or how many times it's done, it's not democracy if it's not the outcome you like.

There's a saying (I paraphrase): 'A good compromise is one where everyone is equally unhappy'.

Guess you could flip around your comment and say it's not democracy if it's the outcome you like!

This could be interpreted as a snarky comment, but is actually on point. A good democracy should function is such a way to afford for an outcome that maximize the satisfaction of each individual.