You asked Frenchie what he wanted the government to do, so the question was not directed at me....however. I would expect members of Parliament to do what they think is best for the country and not to take a course which most of them were against. I would want a government which had enough guts to say 'This result is not conclusive enough to justify taking such a one way journey'. Every judge in this country can ask a jury to go and reconsider its verdict. A change of this magnitude needs a compulsory vote on the matter in order to give it the validity it needs - ie. the majority must be actively in favour of change. By the way don't you mean 'reversed' rather than 'reserved'
The members of parliament have already expressed their view on Brexit. They voted to hand the decision over to the people to choose. They then endorsed the decision to leave by voting overwhelmingly to obey the mandate from the people and commence the process. It is clear 99% of people understand the UK is leaving the EU. There will always be a few who want to usurp democracy when the result does not suit them, sounds very much like the EU itself!!
75% of the MPs in Parliament were for remaining in the EU and only the Conservative Party offered a referendum in the first place. Mumbling that they accepted the mandate of the people was the most spineless thing they have ever done. If you can understand 37% of the electorate as 'the mandate of the people' then I question your maths. How are you in the position of knowing what '99%' of the people in the UK. understand ? Or are you a mass mind reader ? Your understanding of democracy is also a bit strange - you see it as a static thing, proved on one day of the year, whereas democracy means permanent accountability - if the opinion of the majority has changed in 3 years, or so, when Britain actually leaves then democracy should take that change into account.
The way democracy works in the UK is through the ballot box so a political party can only be effectively 'marked' on these days. it does not matter if the majority of the electorate do not approve at a later date they can only change the government at the next election. The same applies to referendum, it is a once only decision on the actual date. Parliament voted in parliament to pass over the decision on Brexit to the electorate. Despite any doubts the MPs voted in parliament OVERWHELMINGLY to commence the process. Trying to guess what each individual MP thought is immaterial, the only thing that matters is which way they voted. The UK's MP's were not spineless, they showed a remarkable degree of understanding and respect for democracy which you have so far failed to do. The EU has bullied and created so many anti-democratic scenes that you are beginning to think their methods are normal.
I must say I have deep respect for Colognes view of democracy which is so much more flexible and responsive to the changing needs of society. Does anyone really hold dear a democracy in which the common people have one vote on all aspects of their countries' future every five years. Like our current Parliament it is not fit for the modern era.
The UK public had a chance of changing our voting system which they thoroughly rejected, you cannot be more democratic than that.
Oh yes... We vote a MP in who then responds to the party whip as opposed to the views of their constituents etc etc.. so undemocratic in the real meaning of the word
Because what was offered was much too complicated which it didn't need to be. The problem is that you are using the word 'democracy' as if the word had a universally accepted meaning, which it doesn't - in the same way you use descriptions like 'left' and 'right' wing, which also have different meanings to different people. We are coming from different planets here because you are viewing democracy as a product whereas I am viewing it as a process. We do not define this word - in fact we have stopped trying to. It is too usefull to have people believing we have it - as I have said before, the best way to stop somebody fighting for something is to convince them they have it already. Can I describe a country as a 'democracy' because they vote once every 5 years ? They are, at best, a democracy for that day only, but no more than that. The central problem is that 'democracy' has become a nice, pretty word - every country likes to use it. I mean 'The Undemocratic Republic of The Congo' doesn't sound so nice. It has become a name but no longer a living thing which people strive for.
Parliament to me is the pinnacle of democracy in the UK, the MP's are free to vote as they wish. I suspect their respect for democracy overrides other issues.
The democratic system in the UK has been there for a long time. As previously mentioned an attempt to change the structure was firmly rejected. I only use the term 'democracy' as accepted in the UK. You may not approve but I am not aware of any ground swell to change the system.
Is it democracy to have a government in power propped up by a group that 99% of the voters did not even have a chance of electing? I thought that buying votes was outlawed rather a long time ago.
Are you trying to justify something by reference to it's antiquity ? Feudalism was there for a long longer before it changed. There was no attempt to change the structure because what was offered was too complicated and in no way better than what we have. The problem is that according to this 'democracy' (if you insist in calling it that) the votes of over 60% of the electorate end up in the rubbish bin - so, the majority are always against the government in power. Little wonder then that there is a creeping disaffection and disengagement from politics.
Where your argument falls down dramatically is there is no demand in the UK to change the system. Most people are perfectly happy with what they regard as 'democracy' in the UK. The high turn out in the recent election showed no dissatisfaction with politics. This was even after so many local, national elections and referendum. In contrast the recent turnout in France was appallingly low with major indifference.
My argument does not fall dramatically when seen over a longer time period SH. The turnout for general elections in the 1950s was around 83-84% and remained over 70% until around 1997 - but has remained under 70% ever since. This suggests that the number of non voters has increased over time - presumably this has to do with the disintegration of an organised industrial working class - the poorest 30% of the population now being only poor. It is the poorest 30% of the population who are the most affected by voting non attendance - this is why compulsory voting almost always benefits parties on the left of the spectrum. The higher the turnout is the better Labour does. Your 'high turnout' was still lower than at every election prior to 1997.
I actually said your argument falls down because of the lack of demand for a change of the UK's democratic system, not the turnout. You may not approve but there is no visible interest for a change of system in the UK. The referendum produced one of the highest turnouts ever, so plenty of interest there.
How do you measure demand in this context SH. do we need demonstrations to measure it ? Why also do you always compare these things to France ? We should be comparing to our own performance over time - why are 15% more people appearing on the non voters figure than in the 50s or 60s ? Constant comparison to France is like saying after a bad match that we at least did better than ......... The fact is that there are 6 EU. countries with turnout rates above 80% at successive elections - the highest being Belgium at 89%. There is a movement for PR. in Britain - do they have to take to the streets to get your attention ?
I understand the Lib Dems, Greens and other tiny political parties would like PR but that is about it. It is up to those very few who oppose the present system to gain support amongst the general public, I do not see any traction whatsoever. So you can continue to moan about the present system but it is unlikely to change for a very long time. I make comparisons with France as they are our nearest similar sized EU neighbour.
1) So minority interests continue to be ignored because of a system that only favours those already in power. A sure recipe for civil unrest.... 2) YAWN..... boring yet again....
