Does Anyone Else Find That Communication...
Family & Relationships3 mins ago
Brexit
The people wanted it. Their elected representatives didn't. Isn't that the whole problem?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. 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.
There are many sides to "the problem", not least that the vote was very close to being even (to deny that is clinging to semantics) and that well below the entire electorate took part (a common flaw and a fault in the "democratic" concept). The possibility/likelihood that, since the referendum and into the foreseeable future, the actual count of would-be repetitions of that particular opinion poll might yield a reverse majority (however small) back and forth on repeated tests is really quite high. We are seeing the worst manifestations of "democracy", a once slim majority on the verge of forcing a minority by an equally slim margin into something long-term (and as both sides see it) that will have major consequences. Every part of the society shows these differences in aims, including among politicians - is that so surprising ? Is it not democratic for each side to want to see its aims realised, or is that a right held by only one of them ?
A pure Brexit would not do serious harm to the country if they had done their job properly. If they had worked as hard on lrpeaving as they have on not we would be in a relatively good position.
Nothing in life is always going to be easy but mitigation on the negatives and bolstering the good would have seen a positive ‘pure’ Brexit.
The only reason Brexit would be a disaster is not planning. And of course the remainextremists in parliment are in charge.
Nothing in life is always going to be easy but mitigation on the negatives and bolstering the good would have seen a positive ‘pure’ Brexit.
The only reason Brexit would be a disaster is not planning. And of course the remainextremists in parliment are in charge.
The "serious harm" bit is overstated. Every change needs to settle down and there's been two years for business and authorities to prepare. So; there's a short period of delay for lorries until they return to moving as they do now. And some paperwork to get used to, and new trade deals/conditions. The sort of thing one takes in one's stride while improving the situation. It's exaggerated in order to worry folk into supporting the wrong option, short term feeling of relief at not having to implement/accept change instead of long term improvement.
One cannot reasonably try to use abstentions to pretent the 'do nothing' case as better than it is. Abstentions don't count. Over half the voters voted for it so half the nation wanted it. If one is trying to pull statistical deception then concentrate on the 'only a third' who wanted to do nothing.
If the issue is that half the elected representatives are not supporting a true Brexit then that just shows that half the elected representatives are not up to the job. The vote was nationwide not constituency based, and the nation's decision was to leave. Since it was the nation's decision the nation's representatives are obliged to *all* be behind the decision. Neither to openly be against it, nor to pretend to be for it yet raise motions/vote on anything they can to delay/stop it.
The House has shown that it's unfit for purpose in it's present form. Were MPs more easily deselected by their constituency, that might change.
If the issue is that half the elected representatives are not supporting a true Brexit then that just shows that half the elected representatives are not up to the job. The vote was nationwide not constituency based, and the nation's decision was to leave. Since it was the nation's decision the nation's representatives are obliged to *all* be behind the decision. Neither to openly be against it, nor to pretend to be for it yet raise motions/vote on anything they can to delay/stop it.
The House has shown that it's unfit for purpose in it's present form. Were MPs more easily deselected by their constituency, that might change.
That is exactly the problem, Ludwig. The turn out was 72.2%- one of the highest ever and it was so very well publicised for so long, I believe just about everyone who had an opinion and wanted to vote, probably did.
If the leave vote wasn't strong enough, then the remain vote was even weaker... so that isn't much of an argument.
If the leave vote wasn't strong enough, then the remain vote was even weaker... so that isn't much of an argument.
