Whilst I agree that a supermajority is an excellent idea for changing things, it's still staightforward for politicians ( or more precisely, civil service manda

Whilst I agree that a supermajority is an excellent idea for changing things, it's still staightforward for politicians ( or more precisely, civil service mandarins ) to play the long-game to achieve what they want regardless. They can operate on a longer timeline than the average voter,for whom there are more pressing daily concerns. For example, de Gaulle originally blocked the UK's entry into the EEC. So the UK went off and formed the rival EFTA with some peripheral nations, until EFTA was eventually folded into the ECSC / EEC. By the time a referendum on remaining was eventually held, in 1975, the UK was already deep in the EEC. Change had been achieved without a majority, or even a minority.