I agree that there is no need for name calling and actually I normally agree with much of what you say Steve - but not on this. The idea that putting such a high benchmark on any change would end any divisiveness just doesn't work for me. Treating non voters as if they were voting for the status-quo would just cause more division in that those voting for change would feel disenfranchised. Non voters in a proper referendum are either not interested, are not able to vote in that they may even be dead, or perhaps they genuinely either don't care either way or don't know. It is not a vote for the status quo though.

I don't see what alternatives there are to a referendum. The only other way is surely the parliamentary process and that is even less democratic. For instance in the Scottish parliament there is a Yes majority but it would not be democratic for them to declare independence as that Yes majority is not mirrored by the electorate or polls where Yes is still on about 46% only. So yes they have a clear mandate for the principle of having another vote from the electorate and from the votes in the parliament itself but that is only for asking the question in a referendum.