TV0 min ago
The Will Of The People ?
I wonder how many of the democracy-loving Brextremists will review this with their usual blinkers well in place.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They say a lot of things.
In the long run, a democratic exercise cannot be undemocratic by definition. So if a second referendum does happen and it goes against the Brexiters -- haven't you been beaten because the country changed its mind? What's so undemocratic about that?
And perhaps you'll win a second time anyway.
In the long run, a democratic exercise cannot be undemocratic by definition. So if a second referendum does happen and it goes against the Brexiters -- haven't you been beaten because the country changed its mind? What's so undemocratic about that?
And perhaps you'll win a second time anyway.
"Democracy is abiding by the result of the first referendum, not carrying on holding them until you get the result you want. "
Says the person who now has the result he wants so doesn't want to hold any more.
Democracy is, as a matter of fact, not defined by shutting down debate and discussion. Two years have passed since the last vote; it's a matter for debate whether those two years have exposed Brexit as a false promise or as a new Dawn, but in either case people are free to (a) change their minds, and (b) be able to say so. A further referendum, on the terms of leaving or even leaving at all, would not be undemocratic. How can it be? It would only overturn the previous result if Britain as a whole *wanted* to overturn the previous result.
Clearly holding a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth... every week, only stopping when it finally came down in favour of remaining, by contrast, clearly *would* be undemocratic.
Says the person who now has the result he wants so doesn't want to hold any more.
Democracy is, as a matter of fact, not defined by shutting down debate and discussion. Two years have passed since the last vote; it's a matter for debate whether those two years have exposed Brexit as a false promise or as a new Dawn, but in either case people are free to (a) change their minds, and (b) be able to say so. A further referendum, on the terms of leaving or even leaving at all, would not be undemocratic. How can it be? It would only overturn the previous result if Britain as a whole *wanted* to overturn the previous result.
Clearly holding a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth... every week, only stopping when it finally came down in favour of remaining, by contrast, clearly *would* be undemocratic.
The issue with the government mishandling of negotiations is clearly separate from the issue of those who dislike democratically arrived at decisions that went against them, and who call for a second chance to vote after spreading their fake news and fear stories.
Only desperate remoaner organisations would have the utter audacity to try to tie the two together when remoaners are the main cause of May's capitulations in the face of EU intransigence, which in turn is encouraged by remoaner opposition in the UK. The main cause of the difficulties can be traced back to those who actively dissent from the agreed course of action at the referendum.
Articles such as that are best ignored rather than create threads as if they have any credability.
Only desperate remoaner organisations would have the utter audacity to try to tie the two together when remoaners are the main cause of May's capitulations in the face of EU intransigence, which in turn is encouraged by remoaner opposition in the UK. The main cause of the difficulties can be traced back to those who actively dissent from the agreed course of action at the referendum.
Articles such as that are best ignored rather than create threads as if they have any credability.
"Wasn't the will of the people expressed during Ted Heaths time as PM when we voted to join?"
As has been mentioned a few times before, we never ever were given a vote to join. We were pushed in by Heath, and later, having been lied to and told it was simply a trading group that would harmonize standards we then had a vote whether to stay in what we'd already joined, or go through the fuss of leaving already.
There was no will of the people to join, just the will of the people to not get out of a trading block we'd been forced to join whether we liked it or not.
As has been mentioned a few times before, we never ever were given a vote to join. We were pushed in by Heath, and later, having been lied to and told it was simply a trading group that would harmonize standards we then had a vote whether to stay in what we'd already joined, or go through the fuss of leaving already.
There was no will of the people to join, just the will of the people to not get out of a trading block we'd been forced to join whether we liked it or not.
