I'd hate to see decisions delegated directly to the Great British Public in an endless series of referendums, though. For a start, I don't think I could stand to live in a state of endless political campaigning - it's bad enough reading the "culture war" nonsense in every paper now.

Secondly, within months, we'd have the immigrants deported, a statue of Maggie in every town square, transgender people made to wear badges with their birth sex and the BBC removed from the airwaves and replaced with a perpetual loop of the Nigel Farage show.

Yes, but also Scotland and Wales would be independent within *days*, so there's a strong upside. The south of England could be its own little corner of a declining empire, we can stick up a hard border around the whole sorry mess, and Scotland and the People's Democratic Republic of Yorkshire and Lancashire will, as always,just get on with the job.

and if that is the people's will, then it must be done. isn't that what democracies are supposed to do?

Not entirely. Democracy isn't a fixed concept, and there are different interpretations of it. Direct democracy (via referenda) is fairly rare, and has clear flaws (look at the EU referendum!)

Equally, the Good Friday Agreement signed in Ireland in 1998 is an example of where an arguably good outcome arose from holding a referendum.

Clearly, referenda aren't "bad" in their own right, but they are a tool that should be employed when the circumstances are right.

If bending minorities to the will of majority is all the democracy is about then fuck that democracy. It becomes a tool of oppression driven by the worst masses could offer.

thankfully, in representative democracy we bend to the will of oligarchs represented by disposable sockpuppets whose campaigns they bankroll and retirement gigs they provide, instead of giving the unwashed masses of deplorable proles any say

"Direct" democracy or rule by public referendum goes against democracy, as it invariably results in a majoritarian democracy. While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland) , it cannot work in India or US (and to a certain extent UK), that have multi-cultural society. In a multi-cultural society, one of the major tenets of democracy is that it guarantees the minorities certain rights that the majority swear to protect. There are many democratic decisions taken by good democrats that have proven unpopular in their times, but later hailed as visionary. A majoritarian democracy prevents this, and invariably turns democracy into rule by the mobs.

> While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland)

Homogeneous as in 4 different language and cultural groups? Are you sure we're talking about the same Switzerland? Not to mention tons of migrants from all over Europe and the wider world?

The real problem with direct democracy is that most people are shortsighted. Governments often need to make long term decisions, like infrastructure, combat climate change, etc. and those are simply too big to be fully appreciated and grasped by your common voter - point in case, new "green" laws to reduce CO2 emissions were recently refused by referendum in Switzerland - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384