News2 mins 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.
/// "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 ///
Yes Jim. one vote, go wih result, that is true democracy, and I do understand you find that hard to understand as you are a remoaner, you lost, get over it.
"Says the person who now has the result he wants so doesn't want to hold any more."
Which is irrelevant whether true or not, as the statement made is accurate. One can vote in rejoining in a couple of decades time if the wisdom of leaving still hasn't become clear to those opposed. Then one may have the debate, not every time someone thinks they can get their way if they strike at the 'right' time. The decision is made, we can not agree to flip flop at every or any opportunity, that's not democracy, that's insanity and an attempt to destroy democracy.
Which is irrelevant whether true or not, as the statement made is accurate. One can vote in rejoining in a couple of decades time if the wisdom of leaving still hasn't become clear to those opposed. Then one may have the debate, not every time someone thinks they can get their way if they strike at the 'right' time. The decision is made, we can not agree to flip flop at every or any opportunity, that's not democracy, that's insanity and an attempt to destroy democracy.
It was never going to take less than two years to leave. This government has contrived to make leaving last a lot longer than that. Until leaving has been achieved it is not possible for voters to make an informed opinion of its success or otherwise.
All the noise about "negotiations" is simply that - noise. Nobody knows what "deal" will be eventually cobbled together. Nobody voted for any sort of deal to be negotiated at all. Until the result of the first referendum has been secured talk of a second one is foolish and will make the UK look even more foolish than it already does. Unless you are a Euromaniac that is, because that is what they thrive on - successive votes when the first provides a result that does not support "The Project".
All the noise about "negotiations" is simply that - noise. Nobody knows what "deal" will be eventually cobbled together. Nobody voted for any sort of deal to be negotiated at all. Until the result of the first referendum has been secured talk of a second one is foolish and will make the UK look even more foolish than it already does. Unless you are a Euromaniac that is, because that is what they thrive on - successive votes when the first provides a result that does not support "The Project".
"Well, the British people would have voted, and still would vote, for the reintroduction of the death penalty for specified crimes. Anyone seriously suggesting they should have their say and that their say should be binding?"
Yes. Unfortunately the UK being signatories to the ECHR makes such a decision impossible to implement.
Yes. Unfortunately the UK being signatories to the ECHR makes such a decision impossible to implement.
It has always occurred to me that a majority could vote for something that makes the nation more primitive rather than advancing us all; but if you object to an elite deciding they know better than you, and believe in the group making the decisions for tge group instead, i .e. democracy, then you have to accept any backward steps until the group as a whole have become enlightened. If State murder was brought back as a form of punishment for a while, then that would have to be accepted, with a heavy heart.
A referendum on the final deal will be an expensive exercise in the long run with little benefit.
What will we be voting on? Accept the crumbs offered by the EU or not?
At the end of the day it won’t matter how bad Mays negotiations go its what is offered by the EU that is important and it is likely that (although a lot of the remainiacs won’t recognise it for what it is) it will be a bad deal.
So what you going to vote for? Bad deal or no deal? You don’t get to vote on staying 9n. That has been decided so all you remainiacs be careful what you wish for.
What will we be voting on? Accept the crumbs offered by the EU or not?
At the end of the day it won’t matter how bad Mays negotiations go its what is offered by the EU that is important and it is likely that (although a lot of the remainiacs won’t recognise it for what it is) it will be a bad deal.
So what you going to vote for? Bad deal or no deal? You don’t get to vote on staying 9n. That has been decided so all you remainiacs be careful what you wish for.
// ...go wih result, that is true democracy, and I do understand you find that hard to understand as you are a remoaner, you lost, get over it. //
I've explained why it's a misunderstanding of democracy too many times to bother repeating it, but there we are. It's one of many misunderstandings that probably fuelled the result, if we're honest.
Mainly I wanted to add that Brexiters have set more store by the result than the outcome, which is short-sighted, to say the least.
In the long run, if Parliament (ie, the seat of democracy in the UK) decides on another referendum (ie, a democratic exercise) to resolve the future of the UK following the previous two or three years since the initial vote, and *if* the ensuing referendum leads to us remaining after all, then -- as every step along the way will have been democratic -- how can it be anything but democratic?
I am not going to pretend that there's no element of cynicism in my position, but in the long run the question, "Are you *sure* you want to leave the EU, if this is what it means?" is not that unreasonable to ask. For many on AB, the answer is "I don't care as long as we leave the EU"; if it so happens that the country agrees, then well done you and more fool me for trying again. If, on the other hand, the country has changed its mind... then isn't it beneficial to find out?
I've explained why it's a misunderstanding of democracy too many times to bother repeating it, but there we are. It's one of many misunderstandings that probably fuelled the result, if we're honest.
Mainly I wanted to add that Brexiters have set more store by the result than the outcome, which is short-sighted, to say the least.
In the long run, if Parliament (ie, the seat of democracy in the UK) decides on another referendum (ie, a democratic exercise) to resolve the future of the UK following the previous two or three years since the initial vote, and *if* the ensuing referendum leads to us remaining after all, then -- as every step along the way will have been democratic -- how can it be anything but democratic?
I am not going to pretend that there's no element of cynicism in my position, but in the long run the question, "Are you *sure* you want to leave the EU, if this is what it means?" is not that unreasonable to ask. For many on AB, the answer is "I don't care as long as we leave the EU"; if it so happens that the country agrees, then well done you and more fool me for trying again. If, on the other hand, the country has changed its mind... then isn't it beneficial to find out?
How can it be anything but democratic ? On the contrary how can not accepting the democratic will of the people and enacting that first, before asking again, be democratic ? It can't. Asking again when the first result didn't suit in the hope one can frighten folk into voting differently is as undemocratic as one could get whilst still offering votes at all. It makes the voting simply a sop to the masses. Surely one can't explain that any clearer ? Re-holding voting is just an EU dirty trick, not wanted in any fair minded democratic society.
A bad deal would include being signed up to or answerable to the European Court of Justice, free movement of people, subsidising the EU for a ‘free’ trade deal, accepting a trade deal that benefits the EU but disadvantages the UK, accepting any conditions on our ability to trade as we wish with the rest of the world, being specifically excluded from projects that we have heavily invested in or over charging the UK to be a part of them and anything that restricts or gives away our our fishing waters.
I am sure there are more but that will do for now.
I am sure there are more but that will do for now.
Latest Posts
Technology5 mins ago
Anyone Listening To Radio 5 Live.....
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
