> "Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo."

Rather, requiring a supermajority is to privilege the status quo, period. There are benefits to stability, no matter how it's constituted. These benefits are codified through mechanisms like supermajority votes.

A more rational referendum would have been a far more serious endeavor, perhaps one in which the population voted multiple times.

Big changes should, in general, not be easy to make.