He gambled 64 million people's livelihoods to defend his party against another, that right now, doesn't even have a sitting MP (for those outside the UK, that's the UK Independence Party).

There's tables at Vegas that haven't seen that level of loss.

> oesn't even have a sitting MP

While technically true, that's deliberately misleading to those not familiar with the UK. That party got 3,881,099 votes (12.7% of all, making them the third biggest in results) but the craziness of the First Past The Post meant that didn't translate to seats.

While FPTP is responsible for its own share of distortions, in this case it's the use of Single Member Electorates that was the primary cause of UKIPs poor seat-for-vote return.

For example, something very similar happened in the last Australian Federal election, which doesn't use FPTP (it uses full preferential voting) but does also use Single Member Electorates: The Greens got 1,385,650 first preference votes, also making them the third-biggest party, for the return of 1 seat (out of 150).

He might have made a gamble for political reasons. But, don't forget that there had been strong demand for a referendum on the matter since at least the mid '90s. It was long overdue, and (being cynical) had been denied because the outcome wasn't going to be what the government wanted (i.e. they knew the majority would have consistently voted leave, and didn't want to hold the referendum until they could guarantee a remain vote).

When given the chance to express their true opinion of EU membership, the majority voted leave. Not a particularly shocking outcome, given the lack of love the EU had in the eyes of most of the populace, and always had despite several decades of indoctrination.

More like given mediocre UK politicians had blamed their own failings on the EU for 30 years.

You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU.

> You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU.

A minority voted to leave the EU.

Errr, no there was a clear majority vote for leaving the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_...

Not of the total electorate almost 30% did not vote passing major constitutional changes on such a small majority is counter to all custom and practice - A local Allotment society would not pass a rule change like this.

Turnout was amongst the highest for any vote in recent history.

What do you propose? Compulsory voting?

Many were genuinely undecided and made a conscious decision to abstain.

Not holding stupid, vague referendums with a mere 50% majority requirement, instead of a supermajority, that can trigger major, complex constitutional changes would be a start.

2/3 or 75% majority which Is the standard for major changes

What was the outcome of the vote to enter the EU?

67% in favour for the 1975 referendum.

That is fine if there is a stable status quo.

The Brexit referendum would have had a huge impact either way.

A Remain vote would have weakened the UK government's position and emboldened the EU as it seeks to form an ever closer union of its member states.

The 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum (also 52:48 in favour) was not passed because Yes failed to meet a threshold of 40% of the electorate.

With 72% turnout. I'm highlighting how stupid the idea that this is the will of the people is in reality.

A higher turnout than the referendum in 1975 (64.62%) to stay in... Does that mean it was never the will of people to be in (then) EC at all?

Of course it was the will of the people. Those who didn't bother to cast their vote didn't get a say.

The rest of the people knew about this vote and they didn't care enough to vote. What are we supposed to do about that? Should we force everybody to vote?