Brexit never gonnae happen they way you think!

[celticthebhoys585]

Never in a way you brexiters thought it would. All the chamelons have been exposed,tight majority vote.Country and goverment in chaos.

It's the money men that will decide as always! What made you think they'd let the people decide-never have done in centuries!

[astrologica]

Oh I agree Joe...no plan whatsoever. In fact they were probably gobsmacked when the referendum went the wrong way..for them. And the whole thing has been handled abysmally since then..with the establishment wriggling on the hook, desperately trying to find a way not to leave, while making it look like we are leaving. But Mr Tusk's remark today just shows how nasty, and desperate, they are.

[astrologica]

I have no doubt that things will get a bit hairy if we leave on March 29th..which we have to do or there will be big trouble. At the moment every bad thing is being blamed on Brexit..scare tactics by the Remainers. Things will probably become very volatile and nasty before then. It could have been so much easier and peaceful if the Remainers had accepted the democratic result immediately after the referendum and worked to deliver a good exit from that nasty club. It's the Remainers that have brought this country to this state, not the Leavers. Leavers were in the Majority.....remember?

[joe_bloggs*]

A delicate flower 

[celticthebhoys585]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1093542494103588864

[upthecreekyetagain]

In a sort of contrary way I almost hope we do leave without a deal - when the truth starts to dawn and jobs start to be threatened as the economy suffers I wonder what sort of backlash the ‘majority’ will be subject to.

The ‘majority view rules’ may well be the basis of democracy but just because the majority vote for one course of action doesn’t make that course the best one nor does it mean that those voting in favour aren’t culpable for the consequences.

[astrologica]

If jobs begin to be threatened and the economy suffers, then the blame for that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Remainers in this country, who have shamefully spent the last two and a half years trying to subvert the course of democracy. 

[astrologica]

But they did have a plan ...Mrs May and her fellow Remainers always had a plan..but that plan was not acceptable to the people of the UK because it does not deliver on the decision of the Majority. Brexiteers had a plan, but that would not be acceptable to the EU...they desperately do not want us to leave. Mr Tusk is getting rattled because we are not going along with HIS plan.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Mrs May isn’t and never was a “remainer”!

Her record in Parliamentary votes show her to be very much a Brexiteer.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/votes#foreignpolicy

[astrologica]

Her voting record shows that she was absent for all the votes regarding membership of the EU up until the Referendum took place in 2016....not much Brexiteering there. She changed her voting stance after the referendum when she was given the task of getting us out. Wouldn't have looked very good to have been absent or voting to support remaining then, would it? 

[upthecreekyetagain]

So surprise, surprise the Home Secretary makes sure they are not available to vote along government lines on something they don’t believe in!

She may not have been a vociferous ‘’Brexiteer” but hardly an ardent “Remainer” either.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

The

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

In a sort of contrary way I almost hope we do leave without a deal - when the truth starts to dawn and jobs start to be threatened as the economy suffers I wonder what sort of backlash the ‘majority’ will be subject to.

The ‘majority view rules’ may well be the basis of democracy but just because the majority vote for one course of action doesn’t make that course the best one nor does it mean that those voting in favour aren’t culpable for the consequences.

---

Absolutely NONE of the blame for this lies with the voters, regardless of whether they voted In or Out and any “backlash” would be inappropriate however things pan out.  All the blame lies with those who asked the populace a question where one of the answer options could not be acted on without potentially damaging the country.

Democracy does not always throw up the most desirable result,, but that doesn’t matter.  The concept of democracy is too important to bend just to fiddle one outcome, in the same way that the concept of justice itself is more important than any one criminal case.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Democracy is “bent” all the time - that is the basis of the art of politics.

If there was a referendum on cutting VAT in half then I suspect there would be a large majority in favour.  Politicians of all persuasions would however never allow such a question to be put to the proletariat.  Is that democracy in action?

With regards to justice there is a massive chasm between what is just and many decisions made according to laws enacted by those same politicians.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I agree, in that the options given have been preselected.  Trump is, some would say, not an ideal president, but there were two choices and the US citizens had to pick one.  But, that is not their fault and there should be no backlash against them if things don’t work out.  

Any democratically-voted on decision may throw up the worst answer.  That is not the point.  Democracy still matters.  There are plenty of places in the world where those unhappy with it can choose to live untroubled by such a pesky thing as ordinary people having a say.

[upthecreekyetagain]

At what stage does “democracy” become “mob rule”?

We had a referendum on Europe and apparently that is democracy in action.  What about a referendum on the death penalty?  Would that be democratic?   As previously mentioned what about a referendum to abolish VAT?  Still democratic?

The claim made by the Southern States of the USA was that segregation according to colour was a democratic choice.

What are the “rules” of democracy?  Should decisions always be binding based on the choices of the majority of people affected by the decision, the majority of people in a specific area, (eg country), the majority of those the law decides are eligible to vote, (eg citizens of a country)?

Should a binding decision depend on there being a majority of all the people, all the adults, or just a majority of those who voted?

Democracy in my opinion is something that should be cherished and encouraged but not taken as the ultimate decider in all situations.  This country has only been totally supportive of democracy in all nations for around 70 years and our form of democracy is still evolving. 

[celticthebhoys585]

Democracy- if only Uk government actually believed in it.UK has never believed in democracy in 312 years auld champion.

A United Kingdom Government that on 1 May 1707 began as it intended to continue – treating the Scots as their inferiors and the United Kingdom parliament as the continued parliament of the country of England they consider to be the master country in the United Kingdom. To the extent they are now not just devolving de facto country of England powers to only three dominion countries while continuing to refer to themselves as The United Kingdom, or even the British Parliament, (as in Brexit).

There is absolutely no doubt that the facts above are the real truth – but, “They don’t want you to know that”.

Westminster’s version of history is a tissue of lies and omissions but a little thought shows their version of history is not only lies but covers up for their illegal actions – actions that Westminster is today still illegally engaged in imposing upon Scotland and the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

Scotland voted remain,as did NI .So brexit is and always will be a an English issue. 

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

At what stage does “democracy” become “mob rule”?

We had a referendum on Europe and apparently that is democracy in action.  What about a referendum on the death penalty?  Would that be democratic?   As previously mentioned what about a referendum to abolish VAT?  Still democratic?

The claim made by the Southern States of the USA was that segregation according to colour was a democratic choice.

What are the “rules” of democracy?  Should decisions always be binding based on the choices of the majority of people affected by the decision, the majority of people in a specific area, (eg country), the majority of those the law decides are eligible to vote, (eg citizens of a country)?

Should a binding decision depend on there being a majority of all the people, all the adults, or just a majority of those who voted?

Democracy in my opinion is something that should be cherished and encouraged but not taken as the ultimate decider in all situations.  This country has only been totally supportive of democracy in all nations for around 70 years and our form of democracy is still evolving. 

---

It is up to the government to decide whether any particular issue should be subject to a referendum.  Once it has, the result can never be “mob rule”.   No one who voted on this referendum has anything to reproach themselves for.  They were asked a question.  They gave their opinion.   And no one on the “losing” side has a leg to stand on when it comes to whinging about the result.  It doesn’t matter one jot if any given individual is unhappy with it.

Voting couid be made compulsory, though you run into problems for those with illnesses like dementia, possibly forced make a choice on an issue they have no understanding of.

Should there have been this referendum on such a complex issue, especially when there was no plan on how to carry through the result? That’s a different question ... though, personally, I think it was reckless in the extreme. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

The Brexit referendum throws up a lot of the points I mentioned in previous posts.

What is “democratic” about a government elected by the minority of the population deciding to have a referendum?

What is “democratic” about a large proportion of the population denied the right to vote in the referendum due to their age?

What is “democratic” about a large number of people denied the right to vote in the referendum due to their nationality despite residing in the UK?

What is “democratic” about citizens of Gibraltar voting in the referendum despite not voting in the election that put the Government who called the referendum into power?

What is “democratic” about a decision being made when the vote in favour was from a minority of the population?

Argue that we should act on the basis of a referendum, I have no problem with that - calling that decision a “democratic” one however demeans the true meaning of democracy and those that aspire to it.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Governments are voted in if they win elections.  Everyone of voting age has a chance to vote and have their voice heard.

The minimum voting age has to have a cut-off somewhere.  Of those below the threshold, some would be knowledgeable and intelligent enough to weigh up the arguments and come to a reasoned decision.  Some over the voting age are not capable of this.  No matter.  Voting rights are decided by aga and age alone.

Re foreign nationals, they usually retain the right to vote in their home country.  If allowed to vote here, where would you have the cut-off?  People who had been here a week, a month, a yr?  

A result is still democratic even if only a minority of the total population voted for it.  That’s how the system works.  Without that, you would have a built-in bias towards the status quo.

Wriggle all you like, but the result was fair and clear.  That’s not to say it would be my choice, but most of the problems we now have with the deal are because a very strange thing happened.  From the morning after, it was clear the bulk of the media would not get behind it.  That gave politicians the space to rant against it in the sure and certain knowledge they would get a lot of air time.  THAT is where the disgrace lies.  Which way the vote landed is immaterial. Accepting which way it landed was what mattered.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I do accept the decision of the referendum.

Was it a democratic vote? - by the definition of democracy it wasn’t democratic.  I.e. a majority of the population deciding.

Not everyone has the opportunity to vote when deciding who should govern them.

There hasn’t been a government in the UK elected by the majority of the population for decades, if ever.

Aren’t foreign nationals residing and working in the UK subject to the laws made by the elected government, don’t they pay taxes disbursed by that government?  How is that democratic if they have no say in who is in that government?

Decisions regarding at what age someone becomes eligible to vote was decided on by a government that couldn’t be voted for by those restricted by that same government.  Why did I have to be 21 before I could vote, now it is 18 and in some elections the voting age is 16 - all very arbitrary and not democratic.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

If you want governments always voted in by a majority of the voting-age population, you limit yourself to two choices on the ballot paper and you have to make voting compulsory.  Otherwise you risk constant hung parliaments and inconclusive results.  

There has to be an age cut off.  Toddlers are capable of crayoning an X, but would allowing them to vote make sense?

i was too young to vote in the 1970s Common Market referendum.  I have never once thought it was unfair that I have had to live my whole working life with a result voted in by others.

If you are suggesting everyone affected by a vote should get one, then shouldn’t the citizens of the Irish Republic have been able to vote in our latest referendum as it sure as hell affects them?  Shouldn’t English residents have had a say in the Scottish referendum, etc?   Equally, shouldn’t ex-pats have been excluded from voting as they don’t live here?

if you choose to reside in a country where you are not eligible to vote, that is up to you.  You come, presumably, because there are benefits for you in doing so.  There may be the odd drawback, but you weigh that up in your decision.