We should have had much more debate about Brexit

Barry M Jones writes: “Bitterly defeated remoaners are demanding a second referendum because they are ‘now better informed’. Are they now … admitting that their bizarre campaign, with its nauseous repetition of Project Fear was ill informed… No wonder they lost!.”

Another possible reason why the Brexiteers won is that they told bigger, bolder, more blatant lies.

These two explanations are both mildly entertaining knockabout, but not much help to anyone.

While we wait for the outcome of current Brexit negotiations, here is a referendum-related question that deserves serious discussion.

‘First-past-the-post’ is used in national and local government elections.

It is an effective process for changing those in power every few years, and thus contributes to instability.

It does tend to diminish the interest of the elected in anything beyond the next election.

It is essentially short-term.

A referendum is usually used for a question about what in other countries would be considered a constitutional matter with a timescale longer than the next General Election.

Do we really want to use a procedure that encourages instability about that sort of thing?

Why do we not require that acceptance of a proposal in a referendum should require more than a simple majority? Pros? Cons?