No it isn't. You interpreted it as saying that they should be de facto remainers, but if you actually look at it in the context of the rest of my post - which talks about status quo bias - it's very obvious why it's very relevant. Your first and second responses here seem very odd when juxtaposed, because you don't seem to see why either of them matter, and yet never put two and two together to see a link between them and how that's what matters here.
And no - Britain is not a business. That does not mean we can chuck all precedent for large organisations out of the window simply because it suits what your gut feeling tells you is best for the country (despite mounting evidence to the contrary).
I can't help but feel partly responsible for you misunderstanding what is going on.
It stems from post 2725, when I was quoting Arctic Troll I accidentally left an extra sentence in the quote box (I've gone back and edited it out now) This has obviously contributed to you getting the wrong end of the stick.
A brief synopsis of the relevant thread of the conversation...
Arctic Troll: I think we should require a majority of the electorate to agree before we make a change.
Gutfright: If you do that, you're effectively saying that non-voters are voting for the status quo.
AT: I'm saying non-voters are voting "don't know".
G: A distinction without a difference. Not voting has the same effect as voting for the status quo.
And that's where you jumped in.
So no, your question about mandates was not relevant to the issue of whether, in the system Arctic Troll described, there is any practical difference between voting for the status quo and not voting at all.
But I am glad you agree that Britain is not a business. Hopefully you'll agree that just saying "well businesses do it" is not, on its own, reason enough for Britain to do something?