[zigzigzag]

The direction of the nation is decided by less than a majority in every vote. So why would this one in particular require "special measures"?

I think what you're getting at here is you support the EU, so would prefer if attempts to leave it or defy it were harder to implement than normal decisions.

[pjbster]

My level of support for the EU is neither here or there but I do get really irate when my country's PM presumes to act according to "the will of the people". We simply don't really know whether that's true or not and I think it'd be nice to find out (somehow).

[gambiting]

Even if remain won, I would still like to see at least 2/3 majority requirement for such an important vote. I don't mind simple majority for periodically repeating votes(parliamentary elections) but decisions which are almost irreversible or which have deep and long-lasting consequences(leaving/joining EU, going to war, breaking up the United Kingdom, changing constitution) should have a 2/3 majority requirement.

[zigzigzag]

And how about if the vote had been phrased as "do you wish to remain in the EU", with a 2/3rd requirement to meet the bar, meaning 1/3rd was sufficient to trigger Brexit? Would that have seemed fair?

Democracy evolved as a shortcut to avoid fights. Just count and you got a rough idea of which side has the most people and thus, is more likely to win if it came down to it. Once you start tipping the threshold in order to bias things towards your preferred decisions, you increase the risk of the losing side thinking ... wait a minute. We could win this. That's far worse than any other outcome.

The EU and its supporters constantly warp the system to try and make it hard for people to leave, hard for the people to reject their policies. It is fundamentally undemocratic.