A very small majority. It seems crazy to make such a massive change when nearly half the voting population is against it. If the threshold had been 70% or something, that might make more sense.
It makes sense that moving from status quo requires more than simple majority, and it is quite common that democracies use this technique for big, fundamental changes (such as constitutional changes), where it pays to err on the side of caution (and thus, status quo).
Yes, but they chose not to. That's what I'm objecting to. With a 52-48 referendum vote, it seems to me that the situation is so unclear that keeping the status quo is the only sensible option.
It was a decisive victory for Leave, and it was made very clear to everyone voting that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, the outcome of which would be respected.
Well, the 2016 referendum doesn't seem very decisive, but you're right that the later election amounted to the population saying "yes we really mean it".
MPs would then have been voted out for overruling the will of the people.
There was a referendum. Remain lost. Last year we had another General Election, with the Conservatives campaigning on a platform to get Brexit done, and they won decisively.
