That’s the thing though, Allan. Referendums by their nature are almost certain to be divisive, no matter how you set the thresholds, which is one of several good reasons for not having them. The reason for setting high thresholds for a decision to make a change is that the change is likely to be highly significant and permanent. On the other hand, a decision in favour of the status quo can easily be followed by another referendum. That’s what I mean when I say that referendums are skewed, and that’s why, if you really must have them, a simple 50+ with a low or no minimum turnout requirement is unsatisfactory. It doesn’t matter how often leavers say the opposite: there was nothing like a majority of the electorate voting to leave. I’m stating an obstinate fact, not stating sour grapes. I won’t waste my energy on that but I will do my damnedest to argue, democratically, for a rethink. If you tell me to shut up, stop whingeing and. “accept the will of the people” (unproven in the extreme, whereas a high bar for turnout and majority would have clinched it forever) it’s you being undemocratic and fascistic, not me. A referendum is not the same as a general election. You are voting for significant and potentially irreversible change. That is not what elections are about. It’s invidious to compare the two.