1 Before I proceed further, what do you define as a majority? Clearly, your definition is the not the legal definition of a majority which is more than half. The country (UK) voted by more than a half to leave the EU and in the bulk of most areas of each English region, the vote was way above 50% voting leave in most cases with only the cities skewing the figures giving a much closer overall figure.
2 I should be impartial, who says? You?? I'm about as impartial as Dominic Grieve is to leaving the EU. I'm not impartial on this or any other subject.
1 In any vote or preference I define the winner or the most preferred as the one with the biggest number, whether by just a tiny or huge amount. In the case of a binary choice (yes-no, leave-remain), as you say, "more than half" is the majority.
2 On impartiality you raise an admirable point which I fully respect.
I'm not sure any of us can be impartial. Indeed, I hope that remains case; after all, how can you have a stimulating conversation with someone who doesn't have an opinion ...... without losing the will to live! This is why I cringe when people say "in my humble opinion ...."
However, as a good conversation develops, intellectual honesty has a role to play, in distinguishing between a fact and opinion. Failing to bring facts into a conversation risks the anticlimactic impasse of "we must agree to differ". I know sometimes that as to be the ending but surely a preferred outcome is some exchange of ideas, enlightenment or modification of a previous dogma.
What I hate about judges is the way they employ fine legal points to camouflage their bias, seeking to rationalise their decision. As with some judges, so with some of us lesser mortals, I think it is deceitful and intellectually dishonest to promote a genuine opinion by citing facts which you have faked, distorted, exaggerated or have selected only those facts which support your opinion.
For example, it is the adjectives you use to preface a noun that can turn partiality or favouritism into deceit. When you refer to a quantitative phenomenon like "majority", "skewness", "bulk", "most", "closer" but withhold the figures and instead embroider the description with words like "way above", "massively", "clearcut", "almost exclusively", "overwhelmingly", you are about as reliable a commentator of factual information as Murray Walker was on Formula One motor racing. But with Murray, his excessive enthusiasm just made him seem a buffoon where, in your case, it makes you as intellectually honest as a Scottish high court judge deciding on the Boris and the EU, or a rabid Brexiteer, or a snake oil salesman or an MP like Dominic Grieve (and Parliament has become infested with such MP's). Only an ignoramus or deceiver or someone who talks before he thinks would describe 52% as a clear or decisive majority.
There was a time in market research when clients has enough intellectual honesty to criticise a researcher's report whose conclusions and recommendation were at variance with the data (ie facts). Such a client would feel that when making business decisions they couldn't trust that researcher. Sadly, today's clients who use research data of people have become rather like yourself - who just want data that confirms their opinions or prejudices (in much the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination).
In conclusion then, do carry on enjoying your partiality and I'll carry on enjoying exposing it as blind unbridled partisanship or, more simply, bullshit!