All the vote gave was "Leave the EU", it did not give Politicians a road map of how to do it, thus it's open to interpretation.
Lots of complex issues of a constitutional nature have to be sorted out with Brexit (devolution being one). Parliament can nix the referendum result any time it likes, it's not legally binding (that is the constitutional fact, never mind the will of the people phrase). So If I were you, I'd reserve the anger for the Lords. Yes May is trying to cram the Lords with as many new Tory Peers as she can, but in reality I doubt the Withdrawal bill will have an easy ride in the Lords (especially if Tory peers rebel against the Government, which some are minded to do).
If anything Brexit has the potential to break the political system and maybe even push the constitution to breaking point as well. I'm of the view the Government will try everything it can to avoid using the Parliament Acts to push through the Withdrawal Bill. As there is a debate amongst Constitutional experts as to the 1949 Parliament Act actually being valid. If it's not any law made using that act would be void. It's not been tested in the courts and I'm pretty sure if the Withdrawal bill were to be forced through Parliament under the auspices of the 1949 Parliament Act then it would likely end up before the Supreme Court. We have no idea how the Judges would rule in that scenario, if plaintiffs were to be given the go ahead to challenge the possible use of the Parliament Acts to force through a Withdrawal bill. I don't think the Government would be foolish enough to try using the Parliament Acts in this instance. So It's merely a hypothetical scenario and not one worth getting worked up about.
What else do you think should have been asked?
Anyway, it's not up to us to tell the politicians how to do it. It's their job. They are supposed to get the best results knowing the task. But they should deliver Brexit, and not try to reverse the vote.
also, is it just m
That's why we have something that is called a representative democracy, right?
which means: we vote for people that can then make decision for us, because we do not have the tools to inform ourselves in the right way of what will work and what will not work. which means the referendum should have never happened because we have a representative democracy.
We need to decide: we want to be like swizerland where they have a referendum for everything or like germany. I guess we wanted to be more like Ghana
The decision has already been made - some time ago in fact...
We want to be like the United Kingdom.
Why Ghana? Apart from the fact that's where I'm sitting at the moment  They have a democracy based on ours.
This was a fundamental question, because it was apparent many people were disatisfied with our membership of the EU. The majority of politicians, the city and businesses wanted to stay in. So without the referendum we would have followed a course that was contrary to what most wished for.
it was just a joke 
I find it perplexing that we put such decisions in the hands of the uninformed. I am sure half of the ones that went voting did not know they wanted to leave the EU until they were told so by Cameron.
Some people are so convinced we will have it better outside of the EU. Just how do they know I ask?
Maybe it is going to be worse or better, but just how do some know it is going to be better than what we have now? Based on what? On what some cretins put on a bus?
How does anyone know we wouldn’t be worse off had we voted to remain? They don’t.
Plenty of stories about people voting remain because they thought they wouldn’t be able to go to Spain on holiday or they wouldn’t have cheap roaming on their mobiles.
People voted for all sorts of reasons.
Which is exactly my point: uninformed voters voting for something they do not understand. I am glad you agree with me that this was a stupid referendum - but let the will of the people be done.
In other news, JC is a harder brexiter than DD: Jeremy Corbyn insists UK cannot remain in single market after Brexit
This is clearly showing that not even the opposition wants the best for this country: they just want to pick up the pieces once the tories destroy what's left in these next"negotiations". Event labour doesn't give a damn about the average joe, all they want is the power. Labour are happy to stay in the shadows and come out when it will be the right time to attack, once all those who voted leave and now their jobs and futures are impacted will be in the streets, screaming to their beloved rulers to give them the promised land.
By the same token why let all the stupid people decide who to vote for in General Elections, or even local elections for that matter, surely we should leave it for only the intelligent people to decide.
Who decides who’s intelligent enough to vote on a particular issue? What makes any of the politicians more qualified to decide on particular issues than anyone else?
The people we vote for decide! It is the whole point of the vote: you elect based on what policies you agree with but you let THEM do the work. BUT YES, I would not mind a system in which your vote is invalidated if you cannot answer 3 basic question to determine IQ and another 3 questions on the policies of the people you are voting for. Any of them wrong and invalidates your vote. I bet half of the votes would not be valid.
That's why we vote for MP's and parties with a manifesto and an agenda on how their are going to rule for 4 years. Right? It is the whole point of the representative democracy. But again, let's just leave that can of worms where it is ...