We have no alternative but to accept the referendum result because the government of the day does not have the guts to overturn it. As for a second referendum - I am not sure if I would ever trust another referendum in the UK. on anything of importance. I do not accept that the referendum was democratic, but my non acceptance does not amount to much. It was not democratic because it was not the will of the people. It was not democratic because of the groups which were excluded from it ie. all those aged 16-18, most British citizens living abroad, and the EU. citizens living in the UK. - in response to the uproar which will arise over the last grouping - if you don't give them voting rights then don't take their taxes. You can of course exclude one group after the other until you get a certain result - but don't talk about 'The will of the people' afterwards. There is also the fact that we had opinion polls right up to the last minute - is that a really democratic procedure ? As a result of many people thinking that the result was a foregone conclusion more remainers stayed at home than Brexiters (which was to be predicted). Polls have shown that of non voters two thirds favoured remaining. Only compulsory voting, combined with an extended voting base would have made this thing democratic. I accept because I have to - as I accept neighbouring cats using my veggie patch as a litter, but nobody is ever going to convince me that democracy has been at work here.
Off Topic UK / EU Future
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I did not suggest which side presented inaccurate information - I agree - both did - in different degrees and different ways.The only problem with that idea is the government are not in a position to offer anything without the EU's agreement. The present system in relying on the UK government to achieve the best possible outcome based on the wishes of the successful majority of the referendum, is the only practical option.
There was at least as much inaccurate information presented by the 'remain' as the 'leave' side before the referendum. However anybody with the slightest interest could have obtained lots of useful pointers by clicking onto this forum. I think we did it to death.
My suggestion would come down to - the UK/EU conclude their negotiations.
The public are then asked to indicate a preference
a) accept
b) reject and walk away with no deal
c) reject and withdraw Article 50.
The public would be able to show what it really wanted.
I'm quite happy to ensure our elected government carries out the answer expressed during the referendum, namely Brexit.
We have no alternative but to accept the referendum result because it would be dishonest to do otherwise. The government cannot offer the people a choice and then withdraw it saying "wrong answer"
Of course it was democratic - people voted. You can argue till you are blue in the face about forms of democracy but that is for geeks. There is no definition of what a real democracy is - men/women; old/ young; citizens/residents and so on and so on. It is a democracy if givenover to elctorate. Sure you can always debate how good a democracy is.
Opinion polls and newspapers etc are part of a free society - they affect voting perhaps but do not prevent a democratic vote.
The "will of the people" is an idiotic phrase. It has no meaning and is only used by people who want to silence opposition. You can only talk about the votes that were in the majority. In this instance it was brexiters.
If non voters favoured remaining they should have voted - I have no sympathy for anyone who fails to vote when they have the chance and then moans they did not get the right result. Tough.
Compulsory voting does not work. If anything it is likely to distort votes against the "establishment" who are forcing them.
I don't suppose you would accept any democracy that was wider than the city states in Ancient Greece where democracy was "invented". And they were far from inclusive of ll people.
All this just comes across as sore losing. Nobody cares whether an individual accepts democracy - so long as it is respected generally.
You beg the question. If your elected government negotiates a Norway deal you will not be happy.
Loss of face is better than years of economic hardship here and in the EU. The EU would in fact be delighted as they would have tamed every future call for break-up and shamed the UK
The UK already looks a total international joke so can hardly lose more face. All it would do is prove the 48% were right.
Have you ever wondered why there is no real definition of what democracy is Leo ? We have stopped really asking the question, as if the answer were self explanatory. Truly the best way to stop people fighting for something is to convince them they have it already. Democracy is a process it is not a product - the minute you say you have it, it is gone. I will ask you a direct question - the lives of thousands of British citizens living in the EU. have been changed beyond recognition without them being able to express a voice in the matter. From a certain time onwards they will have their EU citizenship taken away - all this was done by forces that were outside their control. I was not asked, so why should I accept the result ?
There was nothing wrong with the referendum except some find it hard to accept the democratic result. The UK parliament endlessly debated the details and rules which governed the vote on whether the UK should stay or leave the EU. Only a small minority of MPs failed to endorse the form of the referendum. No challenges, legal or otherwise have managed to question the validity of the referendum and the withdrawal bill has passed through parliament. The UK will leave the EU on terms to be agreed or lack of immediate agreement.
It is not acceptable to have a referendum then try to add conditions which invalidate the original decision. If this happened it would make the UK a laughing stock, similar those EU countries which allowed themselves to be bullied by the EU into re-run referendums.
It is not acceptable to have a referendum then try to add conditions which invalidate the original decision. If this happened it would make the UK a laughing stock, similar those EU countries which allowed themselves to be bullied by the EU into re-run referendums.
All things political are subject to debate - and the concept of democracy is no exception. Who do you suggest as the world authority who would define democracy for you? Conservatism is not defined, nor socialism, nor communism etc etc. Most of us are satisfied that we have a working definition of democracy that suits ordinary parlance. I don't go in for conspiracy theories so do not try to persuade me that "they" do not want you know what it is.
Democracy is not a process. It is an abstract concept.
I don't care who does or does not accept the result - like the sun - it is there. I feel as hard done by as anyone and I had the vote - but if you lose it makes no difference how or if you voted. Did you protest that you should have been given the vote before the referendum? If not it is a bit late to moan now.
There was everything wrong with the referendum and if you had lost you would have been one of the moaners. It changes nothing. The rules etc were hardly touched on before the referendum but that is just tough. The result stands. Can you see the difference? I accept the result - but I just don't like it and will not support it or do anything to help it; indeed if I could prevent it I would.
I only hope a Norway brexit comes about and we will see how well you accept that.
People in colognes situation were promised a vote before the referendum, and the government did nothing to make it happen. They did protest, but were ignored. Many still pay taxes in the UK. No tax without a vote has always been understood, as one should have a voice in how that money is spent.
I would not have moaned about the process, I was satisfied there was every opportunity for the public to raise issues with their MP's concerning the rules and regulations covering the referendum. There must have been insufficient concerns raised either on the choice to use a referendum and/ or invoking article 50, to prevent it passing through parliament with an overwhelming majority. None of these concerns currently being waged by those on the losing side would have been posted had 'remain' won. Sour grapes old chaps.
I am a democrat so will accept the best deal our democratically government eventually secures. This does not prevent us ardent Brexiteers from seeking to achieve our red lines or indeed 'remainers' seeking a 'soft' Brexit / re-entry into the EU in future.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
I must say that sour grapes can be turned into something more long lasting than the immediate joys of a sweetened variety.
In the long term not much will change because it is all premised on a world order of the economy and defence in the main but now encompassing communications too.
I am pretty sure of that. There is too much invested in it....
In the long term not much will change because it is all premised on a world order of the economy and defence in the main but now encompassing communications too.
I am pretty sure of that. There is too much invested in it....
I do wish you would stop using votes in Parliament to prove any point. The large majority in Parliament is simply because both major parties vowed to support the referendum result. No more no less. So all you are saying is that 52% won and Parliament was obliged to accept it. We all know that. The size of majority is not relevant. Are you not able to debate subjects where there are differences of opinion? Stifling debates by saying sour grapes is not an argument it is at best an insult to curtail real discussion. Whether or not the referendum should have been analysed more in the lead up is an honest subject to have an opinion on isn't it? I do agree that people rarely question matters that favour them - but that does not make them less questionable.
I am pleased you accept that both brexiters and remainers still have aims to achieve.
There is little comment this side of the Channel on what is seen as an internal party problem. When you do come across something it goes along these lines. You had a referendum, which produced a result. You have a Prime Minister who doesn't believe in what she is doing. She has continued to tell people that she will get a deal that will be good. She asked for a mandate to agree her position in the talks with the EU. The people voted in the general election, and the result was a minority government. So now you have part of a single party at odds with itself running the country. How can you expect good government? She created a series of conditions that were unreal and could not be agreed to just to keep one part of her party happy. It might be a good idea if she told everyone the truth, that her ideas will not work, and asked if the people want her to continue with a weak agreement, or request the EU to call the whole thing off.
The actual votes in parliament to ensure the passage is vitally important. It showed there was little opposition to oppose the referendum result. The size of the majority in parliament for implementation and invoking article 50 was impressive. I'm sure if it had been much narrower you would have rightly claimed much less support in parliament.
I fully support differing viewpoints but question the relevance of discussing referendum rules well after the event.
You may not go in for conspiracy theories Leo, but you cannot deny that economic exploitation is not the only driver of capitalism - rather the system is reinforced by the dominance of ruling class ideas and values, a form of cultural hegemony. To express things in a more simple way - if you repeat the word 'democracy' often enough, in enough different settings as being a 'done thing' then people will eventually believe it. They will stop questioning - and those who continue to question will, progressively, find themselves on the outer borders of the irrational. We are not encouraged to debate what democracy is - they simply tell us we have it, and the majority laps it up. I said democracy was a process and not a product. Man himself, and all things created by man, are subject to the conditions of birth, growth, maturity, decay and finally death - there is not exception to this. According to this countries are either democratizing, or they are going in the other direction - there is no static, finished product, the minute you try to make it static it is over. Of course our ideas of democracy may be different - you cannot describe a country as democratic if only the political sphere is organized in that way, and that only once every 4 years. At most you can say that there are some elements of democracy there.
- Status