50%+1 is enough to change a lot of things. Its enough to change policy, to carry a motion in the House of Commons. But for a major constitutional change? No, I dont think it is. We are not talking about policies that come and go here, passed by one government and repealed by the next, this is for major, long term issue, the effects of which will be felt for generations, which require a high level of consensus.
That is why a two thirds majority is needed for significant constitutional amendments in a lot of countries, as I said before. This is not unusual, this is not me throwing out a wacky idea to thwart the will of the British people, there are rules like this in the US, there are rules like this in the EU. If Brexit had passed by a two third majority, rather than a paper thin majority, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in. To change a country so fundamentally you need an overwhelming number of people behind you or you are going to end up with the kind of acrimony and gridlock we see now. That is why Remainers would have taken a 50%+1 victory without a quibble: it was the status quo. There is no contradiction there.
Dictatorship lite? What are you talking about? Have a word.
