Whatever now happens with Brexit, the concept of the referendum is tainted.

All the legal shenanigans being exerted have killed it off as something that politicians can offer in order to help win a general election.

At least until memories fade...

Yes, 40 years ought to do it.

Totally disagree.

The Scottish and EU referendums engaged voters in a way no general election has in this country for decades.

People living in safe seats finally could cast a vote on something where their vote counted. Many voted for the first time ever for this very reason.

The richest nation in the world is run by referendums - Switzerland - not an EU member of course! And that's perhaps because the people run the country and decide major issues not the politicians.

I know democracy where everyones vote counts and counts equally scares some people - particularly those doing well from the status quo. But I think it's wonderful and we need more of it!

Was never in favour of Refs. This recent one confirms why. I hope we never have another one. They are so divisive.

If a referendum bill had said it was binding and the UK would leave the EU and the single market and article 50 would be triggered by the RP in the event of a leave vote none of these legal shenanigans could have happened if MPs had passed it.

Of course parliament collectively doesn't like the result and neither do many others in the establishment and both the government and parliament never wanted or considered a leave vote would actually happen. For those who voted to leave nearly 6 months on nothing has actually happened and they may be left with even less faith in the democratic process.

The irony!

Or do you just oppose them because on this occasion you backed the losing side.

Every vote counted and none was wasted - that is real democracy not the five yearly farce of a general election we hold under first past the post where we get majorities on 36 per cent and 80 per cent of people always end up with an MP of the same party everytime. In Scotland of course it was the referendum that ended decades of Labour domination and safe seats.

Referendums change things which rather scares those who think they run the country and have a right to forever.

It made Politics really exciting and engaging to the extent the DS forums had technical issues from the sheer number of posts made in the Politics section. Six months on and the forum is still dominated by it.

From the point of view that I don't give a flying one what happens, it is really quite amusing.

Switzerland's population appears to be better educated than ours, though, and can be trusted to vote after having ensured that they are in full possession of the facts. They also don't have scandalously bad "campaigns" like Vote Leave.

'Better educated' - where have we heard that before?

So we are just too thick to cope with referendums in the UK?

Or more likely we need more of them as it stimulates debate and discussion and engages people in the political debate - a more engaged electorate will in due course become more informed because their opinion can influence things.

That's all oxygen thief Cameron's fault for doing a completely botched job, for not anticipating an actual vote for Leave and for irresponsibly walking away from the huge problem that he created.

Even in the elections of party leaders?

Why is anyone surprised the wheels have come off Brexit, Cameron's government was great at cheese induced ideas that became policy without considering consequences

If you watched the appeal last week you will see that what the referendum did was open a constitutional can of worms.

Theres no way the people in charge are ever going to trust us again to vote on something that they don't know the result before asking the question.

Ok they might run the odd one such as what colour should we paint something etc but anything that has any real value it'll be sorted out before we even hear the first discussion in parliament.

The only issue was May assuming she had dictatorial powers.

.... she's a Tory. They have systematically removed our liberties over the last six and a half years.

Remember, in 2016 we can't even be trusted to name a ship!

Perhaps the person who decided the public was wrong on that should be made PM? He seems to have better judgement than the current one.

Referendums are fine if you know the result, and its unlikely to change . If its two thirds, or 60-40 one way, its a way to shut the minority up . If circumstances don't change, you would expect the outcome not to change - as the logic doesn't. Nuclear weapons are not going anywhere for the next 50-80 years, , so its unlikely that a 65-35 vote, to keep them, will change. Issues like hanging are also unlikely to see a swing back in favour.

What you don't want are close votes that could change by the week , or questions where the consequences are unknown , complex, completely disputed, or unknowable- or where people will vote on some other issue, or for something unobtainable.

You also don't want something that says A or not - without specifying what or not is.

You also don't want to test issues where different generations have different views. By definition, the conclusion will change as generations die off. You end up with the dead deciding the future, of those living, long after. Thats why you have MPs and frequent elections - to reflect changing views.

The EU referendum is a really bad example of a successful referendum because it was worded in such a way that no one knew exactly what changes would result from a Leave vote (and still no one knows) and both sides' campaigns were entirely based on half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Maybe we should try again with a proposition that is fully drafted and costed and supported only by factual documents and, if that one works, take it from there.

I expect the air to be thick with flying blue dummies and teddies if the supreme court tells her that despite what she appears to believe she is NOT 'el presidente for life' and that in our little democracy it's parliament that gets to democratically vote on such matters and that they are not decided by her and a few trusted chums,

To steal a line from the Corbyn bashers, I will be very surprised if she is still in the job this time next year,

I just hope my predicting skills are better than theirs, mind you it would be bloody hard for them to be worse.

This being the argument that she is a dictator as she merely wished to move ahead with the decision of the electorate who voted in a referendum in which 36 million people turned out - a referendum which parliament voted for in the first place presumably on the assumption the result would be respected otherwise why bother.

Not sure what your idea of a dictator is - but it doesnt normally involve implementing the democratic decision of the electorate following a national vote of the people.

Another piece of remoaner hyperbole!

Like the AV one?

Switzerland also has the highest gun ownership of Europe (7 times that of the UK) and practically all of their firearm deaths are suicide as are the UKs, but Switzerland's is 18 times greater than the UKs. Make of that what you will, problem or not a problem? Educated approach or unedcuated approach?

Don't reply, I just wanted to make some random spurious point about Switzerland as if it was clever, in response to a random spurious point about Switzerland as if it was clever.