Re: Can't we get rid of May?
"I don't think anyone would have had a problem if the govt had said they needed a 2/3rd majority for exit. "
I would have.
Legally, it was an _advisory_ referendum, and as such the oversight of truthfulness and spending in campaigns was effectively non-existent. The fact that it was advistory and many people felt so confused by the FUD contributed to the spectacularly low electoral turnout.
A binding one would have been subject to much stricter checking and restrictions and there should also be a quorate requirement for such things in addition to a supermajority voting requirement. (There should be a quorum requirement for general and local body elections too, but I digress)
The moment Cameron started raving on about the results being binding was the moment that the wheels started falling off the legality of the campaigning.
Now we have the sight of UKIP and three other (anonymous(*)) entities refusing to cooperate with the ICO's investigations into criminal behaviour during the referendum campaign where even if laws were found to have been broken, invalidating the result is not an option (unlike an election) - and that illegal activity is by the rules of an advisory referendum, not a binding one.
(*) They're only anonymous because they haven't (yet) tried to challenge the ICO's statutory powers directive. They haven't handed over the required information yet. UKIP took it to court and were decloaked as a direct result. I suspect the other three are looking on to see what the results are before trying it themselves.