The whole last few years remind me of an 80s movie where a teen threatens to run away and the parents let them go through the motions before they realize how screwed they'll be on their own.
No, we immediately got the guilty promoted and content free slogans like "Brexit means Brexit", a slogan that clearly demonstrates the level of esteem our politicians have for the electorate.
It's so clearly a slow-motion train wreck that I am astonished there hasn't been a real parliamentary attempt to actually stop it or avoid it. No, keep going until we are firmly over that cliff. As someone else said we can have an easier and more rational conversation on religion.
Still it'll give Brits plenty to talk about "what might have been" for the next 40 years as we sink further into insignificance.
I don't know what could be done to address that though, it's not something that can be undone I would have thought without huge political and economic consequences.
The real issue for the EU is the lack of financial and political solidarity. You can bankrupt a EU country and expect the others to pick up the tab, even if there nothing written down in the EU constitution saying so. The Syrian migration issue is a glaring example of a lack of political collaboration.
EU countries needs to acknowledge the fact they are actually tightly bounded to the union and make changes in the way the EU works to reflect that situation.
I sympathize with Brexit voters, I would vote to leave the EU at any given day if given the chance.
The Bolsheviks also gave fair elections a shot....one shot....one and done.
There have only ever been 3 national referendums in Britain. One to join the EU, one to leave the EU, and one over Alternative Vote. They used to be considered unconstitutional, a tool for demagogues. I would be happy to ditch them forever.
Heck, we have confirmation dialogs when you close a word document - I don't understand the opposition to having an "are you sure you want to quit?" for brexit.
Brexit is a pretty major decision, and it's not unreasonable to me to require that the majority that voted for it is in fact stable and consistent via holding a second vote. If the second vote does not indicate that a majority supports leaving, that seems like an indication that it was a fantastic idea to hold a second referendum.
We either have a direct democracy, or a representative democracy, not bits of each as suits someone's point. Up until the first EU referendum in the mid 70s they were considered unconstitutional in Britain.