** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[djnotts]

" The point of democracy is that everybody has an equal vote and those with a sense of privilidge have no greater vote than anybody else."

Edit to read "The point......an equal vote but unfortunately not all have equal sense and the irrational and illogical really shouldn't be given the same weight."

[meic]

I like it when somebody is actually heretical enough to admit they dont support democracy.

The main reason I bring up democracy all the time is because most of its most vocal supporters only do so on a vague conceptual level but recoil from it when it is actually put into practice and allowed to threaten the position of the people's betters.

If we wanted logical and rational government, we wouldnt use democracy to achieve that we would have something like the Chinese presently have.

[pwa]

" The point of democracy is that everybody has an equal vote and those with a sense of privilidge have no greater vote than anybody else."

Edit to read "The point......an equal vote but unfortunately not all have equal sense and the irrational and illogical really shouldn't be given the same weight."

I imagine all sorts of undemocratic voices throughout history will have shared that sentiment.

[meic]

The three great "mothers" of democracy were all based on that principle.

Greece, the UK and the USA all based their democracies on votes only being cast by the privileged, not everybody.

Even now we consider all those under 18 to be not worthy of a vote.

[Cyril Haearn]

The three great "mothers" of democracy were all based on that principle.

Greece, the UK and the USA all based their democracies on votes only being cast by the privileged, not everybody.

Even now we consider all those under 18 to be not worthy of a vote.

In some jurisdictions, local elections, on may vote from 16
I think each person including children and babies should have a vote. Babies votes could be proxy-cast by their parents

[pwa]

The three great "mothers" of democracy were all based on that principle.

Greece, the UK and the USA all based their democracies on votes only being cast by the privileged, not everybody.

Even now we consider all those under 18 to be not worthy of a vote.

In some jurisdictions, local elections, on may vote from 16
I think each person including children and babies should have a vote. Babies votes could be proxy-cast by their parents

So have ten kids and get eleven votes

[Cyril Haearn]

The three great "mothers" of democracy were all based on that principle.

Greece, the UK and the USA all based their democracies on votes only being cast by the privileged, not everybody.

Even now we consider all those under 18 to be not worthy of a vote.

In some jurisdictions, local elections, on may vote from 16
I think each person including children and babies should have a vote. Babies votes could be proxy-cast by their parents

So have ten kids and get eleven votes

As soon as the plentyn understand they vote themselves, maybe from age six? The only solution would be to keep having more children like the cottager from Llanfairfechan: 11 children. No boys

[pwa]

In some jurisdictions, local elections, on may vote from 16
I think each person including children and babies should have a vote. Babies votes could be proxy-cast by their parents

So have ten kids and get eleven votes

As soon as the plentyn understand they vote themselves, maybe from age six? The only solution would be to keep having more children like the cottager from Llanfairfechan: 11 children. No boys

If kids got the vote that would be the end of the sugar tax.

[[XAP]Bob]

I like it when somebody is actually heretical enough to admit they dont support democracy.

The main reason I bring up democracy all the time is because most of its most vocal supporters only do so on a vague conceptual level but recoil from it when it is actually put into practice and allowed to threaten the position of the people's betters.

If we wanted logical and rational government, we wouldnt use democracy to achieve that we would have something like the Chinese presently have.

The issues with the concept that this is somehow democracy in action are plentiful.

- It's a one way move. There is no way to unleave, we would never get the various exceptions that we currently enjoy back again.
That means that, IMHO, you need a significant majority to act on such a move (not just this one, any one way move).

- The referendum was never binding on parliament, and Mr Farage himself declared that he wouldn't be happy with a 52/48 vote just weeks before the referendum was held (he's rather happy about that margin being clear and decisive now).

- The electoral commission is currently talking about large scale electoral misconduct from the official leave campaign. That in itself should be sufficient to nullify the result, particularly given that it was a knife edge vote.

- The question asked was all things to all people; how anyone can claim to 'know the will of the people' when the vast majority of 'the people' have absolutely no idea what the EU actually does (and I count myself as largely ignorant here) and therefore no meaningful 'will'.


Shall I carry on?

[meic]

It just doesnt wash, even to a remain voter.

The result is valid, any abuse of a privileged position to overturn the result on petty issues which do not have a significant impact is just the sort of non-democratic practice that we accuse other countries of.

[pete75]

The three great "mothers" of democracy were all based on that principle.

Greece, the UK and the USA all based their democracies on votes only being cast by the privileged, not everybody.

In my opinion the minimum for a system to be called a democracy is suffrage for all adults. What you describe above certainly isn't democratic. The Uk finally became a democracy in 1928 when women received the vote on the same basis as men.

[Cyril Haearn]

People didn't bother thinking about it much and forming opinions until after the last vote
Now is the time for a third referendum, with people living abroad and guest workers allowed to vote too

[roubaixtuesday]

Sure, the result is valid.

The leave position was that we could leave and maintain access to EU markets, and lose free movement.

It was always impossible to implement, as is now painfully obvious.

Now, we have to choose which of these we want.

Making a different choice to the ideologues who ran the leave campaign and have now changed their tune is not betraying the will of the people or any such. These choices were not on the ballot paper, and were explicitly denied as necessary choices at all by the winners.

Neither is it any less democratic to campaign for a second referendum than it was to campaign for the first.

Reality is finally starting to collide with the Brexit fantasy. It was always inevitable, and there will be more "red lines" retreated from yet. Who knows where it will end.

[meic]

Who knows where it will end.

Nobody knows but I still think it will be with Blue passports and the removal of the term EU at the top of some important papers and signposts.
and a lot of common people more aware that they are powerless to change anything with their vote.

I doubt they will take it lying down though, they will just just aim even further afield with their votes.
If we are lucky that will mean Corbyn but it will probably lead to a UK version of Trump instead.

People can campaign for a second referendum and I am sure the government would be delighted to have such a thing if they were sure that it would reverse the previous one. The fear is that people will confirm the previous one.

A big problem is that people are still "shouting down" dissenting voices and then being shocked when the people wield their one remaining equal power.

[661-Pete]

The result is valid.....

Yeah ... sure.

Seeing as 'football fever' is currently gripping the nation, how's this by way of comparison? The result is as valid, as Sr. Maradona's first goal against England in the 1986 World Cup, was 'valid'......

any abuse of a privileged position to overturn the result on petty issues which do not have a significant impact is just the sort of non-democratic practice that we accuse other countries of.

Oh well, that's OK, fine by me then. I don't have any 'privileged position' to abuse. I merely have the will, as an ordinary citizen, to wish for the result to be overturned, to campaign towards that end. Becasue it's the only outcome that now makes sense. Nothing non-democratic about that! And it just so happens that there are millions out there who, knowing more than they did in 2016, are of a like mind.

None of those millions are anti-democratic.