Well, not much to disagree with there. Dare I say it, this is one of the most reasonable and thoughtful takes on Brexit I’ve read.

A point for your consideration:

While I agree referendums are divisive and binary by nature, I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. Most pundits (except yourself in this article) will say Leave voters meant this or that by their vote, whereas, as you say, no-one really knows the reasons behind each of the 17 million votes. But, my long-held belief is that the value of a referendum is that it takes a snapshot of public opinion on a matter, and offers all political parties a chance for course correction.

Without the Brexit referendum how would any of the main parties know just how deeply the public wanted out of the EU? Don’t forget, none of the big 3 political parties supported leaving the EU. If leaving the EU was something you supported, what were your voting options? You could either vote for a party that was generally pro EU, or a party that was very pro EU, or a party that was myopically pro EU. The incredible rise (and subsequent collapse) of a single issue party that say, was in favour of the UK being Independent of the EU meant that some of us weren’t altogether surprised by the referendum result.

Or take the recent Irish referendum on abortion. The result is an impossible to ignore signal to Irish parties their policies are out of touch with the nation.

One wonders what the outcome of a referendum on banning guns would be in the US? The political power of the gun lobby is so imbalanced, and political discourse so entrenched, how are any of the Presidential candidates to know where most people stand on the issue? And how could they possibly take any anti-gun stance without a decisive referendum result to lean on?

Referenda perhaps shouldn’t be constitutionally binding, but they’re an invaluable pointy stick with which to burst the Westminster bubble.