It was against the 'will' of 2 of the nations which make up the UK. Also against the will of the nation's capital and all it's largest cities. It left us with a divided nation - regionally, according to age, and even according to religion. In 1975 there was accord throughout the UK. Interestingly enough the 'remain' vote (1975) was highest in England, 68.7% followed by Wales 64.8%, Scotland 58.4% and Northern Ireland 52.1% - almost the exact inverse of what we have now. The 'Brexiters' of those days were the staunchly Labour areas - just as in 1983 when Michael Foot wanted another referendum.
You can say what you like about your idea of democracy SH. But if that means that 52 people say to the other 48 'we won, get on with it' as if the 48 are suddenly going to disappear - rather than looking for a solution which the 48 partially agree with then you are sowing the seeds of poison for many years to come. If 'remain' had won by the same margin the issue would not have been over - Farage said as much before the referendum. On the other side the issues and worries of the Brexiters would have still been addressed. You cannot brush away 48% of the population as if they didn't exist.
I think that the question has been asked already - Is Norway in the EU ? Is Switzerland in it ? The answer to both of those is no. The question on the ballot sheet was 'Do you want the UK. to leave the EU' ? So, both the Norway and Switzerland models qualify as leaving the EU. which is what the referendum was about. No question was asked about leaving the single market or customs union, and the possibility of a 'Norway' solution was banded about by Bojo before the referendum. What is now urgently required is to know what type of Brexit the populace want, because we do not know this. Your assumption that every Brexit voter wanted a hard Brexit may be well wide of the mark. In the same way your version of 'Hard Brexit' is partly associated with a wish/need for a closer relationship to the USA. Do the electorate want this ?
We know what lies were told during the referendum - mostly by brexit. My point is you only seem to quote those that are in your favour - so if there are sour grapes I think you are the one who has consumed them
I am pleased you now rely on Parliament to interpret what brexit means - correctly of course.
Of course my prediction is optimistic but I think realistic too. There is no majority for a hard brexit.
Nobody gave two thoughts about the details of the referendum as Cameron was so cocky he would win. If he had foresight he would have included far more controls to make sure a damaging close vote could not have torn us away from 40 years of successful membership. He was arrogant and careless - and walked away when he lost.
Of course my prediction is optimistic but I think realistic too. There is no majority for a hard brexit.
I love your posts - "parliament designed it after careful scrutiny". Did they really?
All the votes post the referendum have been by cowardly MPs afraid of upsetting the red tops and sticking to the mantra of "the people decided". Fair enough I have not said they cannot do that. However an MP is supposed to think of the good of the country - which brexit is not.
It is only you who is arguing about 1975. How old were you then? Did you really have a political interest. Back then I was not really bothered so cannot comment.
