Reply to: Funny old thing, democracy

[Old Greg]

Question for the Brexit-supporting upholders of democracy on here:

Say the Brexit Party was to contest the next GE, and won a majority. Can Nigel Farage be voted out as leader of the party by their MPs/MEPs, and another person voted in as leader?

The MPs could just set up their own party.

[meridian]

Question for the Brexit-supporting upholders of democracy on here:

Say the Brexit Party was to contest the next GE, and won a majority. Can Nigel Farage be voted out as leader of the party by their MPs/MEPs, and another person voted in as leader?

[Old Greg]

No it didn’t, they argued that it was possible to have a separate deal like Norway but specifically for Britain.

A deal should be pretty easy but it’s been frustrated by the Eu and our own parliament.

Just because it’s been made difficult does not mean it should have been difficult.

It’s clear leaving Eu can only be done by leaving the custom union and single market. Trade agreements etc should have been straightforward.

I’m starting to think we really need to look at our parliament and figure out a way of increasing the standard of the people that represent us.

Saying it is clear doesn't make it clear. In fact it is patently untrue. To leave the EU, the UK has to stop being a member state. Everything else is up for grabs.

[woohoo]

You’re mixing up the Withdrawal Agreement and the future relationship - a common mistake.

The U.K. hasn’t even started the discussion on what the future relationship should be like. Agreeing the WA would give the U.K. two more years in the transition period to decide what the future should look like.

I’m not mixing anything up. You made a mistake of not thinking things through properly.

[original PM]

No it didn’t, they argued that it was possible to have a separate deal like Norway but specifically for Britain.

A deal should be pretty easy but it’s been frustrated by the Eu and our own parliament.

Just because it’s been made difficult does not mean it should have been difficult.

It’s clear leaving Eu can only be done by leaving the custom union and single market. Trade agreements etc should have been straightforward.

I’m starting to think we really need to look at our parliament and figure out a way of increasing the standard of the people that represent us.

Ok the problem is this - we all have 'jobs' be it contracting, permit or whatever - and the main goal of that 'job' is to earn as much money as possible.

It is what lets us at a basic level feed our kids, put roof over their heads etc etc.

And because of this when we make decisions in this 'job' they will generally be geared towards what's best for us whilst also making sure the company makes money (because in general that will also be better for us).

However note there is only limited loyalty between company and person who does they job and that is just the expected outcome of capitalism.

Now then how does this fit with a career politician?

Well we have already ascertained that the reason people do their jobs is to feather their own nest and look after their own self interests - however a politician is supposed to be representing the people in their constituencies - not their own self interest.

And this is why we have tulip politicians now - and if you think the ultimate career move for a politician is the EU gravy train and as most of the UK politicians are self serving ******* how would we expect them to treat the desire of the UK population to leave the EU?

With the complete and utter disdain they have been showing for the past 2 years.

And just to make you laugh

[meridian]

No it didn’t, they argued that it was possible to have a separate deal like Norway but specifically for Britain.

A deal should be pretty easy but it’s been frustrated by the Eu and our own parliament.

Just because it’s been made difficult does not mean it should have been difficult.

It’s clear leaving Eu can only be done by leaving the custom union and single market. Trade agreements etc should have been straightforward.

I’m starting to think we really need to look at our parliament and figure out a way of increasing the standard of the people that represent us.

You’re mixing up the Withdrawal Agreement and the future relationship - a common mistake.

The U.K. hasn’t even started the discussion on what the future relationship should be like. Agreeing the WA would give the U.K. two more years in the transition period to decide what the future should look like.

[woohoo]

During the Brexit campaign, the Leave was overwhelmingly giving Norway as the model for the UK. A deal was portrayed as the easiest deal in history and no-deal was never mentioned. Farage stated that if Remain won by less than 60% then he would want another referendum.

No it didn’t, they argued that it was possible to have a separate deal like Norway but specifically for Britain.

A deal should be pretty easy but it’s been frustrated by the Eu and our own parliament.

Just because it’s been made difficult does not mean it should have been difficult.

It’s clear leaving Eu can only be done by leaving the custom union and single market. Trade agreements etc should have been straightforward.

I’m starting to think we really need to look at our parliament and figure out a way of increasing the standard of the people that represent us.

[meridian]

Ok, what are you doing to change this?

a. Who said I wanted to change it?

b. If there is any change needed to the U.K. parliamentary system (and there are plenty of people on here saying that the U.K. democracy is dead) then I am hardly in a position to recommend change, I’m not British.

If you’re British, and you think your Parliament is not democratic, then you need to do something about it yourselves.

[Zigenare]

“The EU is undemocratic!”


This week in the EU:
- Voting across the EU to elect MEP representatives


This week in the U.K.:
- Liam Fox calls for a clearout of any advisers that don’t “believe in Brexit”

- PM resigns, leading to the prospect of a new leader of the Conservatives being chosen by just 100k members

- That new leader will attempt to form a Government and ask the unelected sovereign if s/he can be Prime Minister.



Funny old thing, democracy. Seems it can be whatever people want it to be.

Ok, what are you doing to change this?

[AtW]

Farage stated that if Remain won by less than 60% then he would want another referendum.

Yeah, but he did not state that if Leave vote by 1 vote then he'd want another referendum

[Paddy]

What a ridiculous comparison. The premise of the vote was set out by the government (supposedly elected individuals via a democratic route). And that premise was - if we vote out - we are out. That's what people voted for. There wasn't a third option. The vote was a yes or a no. It's irrelevant however many people voted to remain. Just like it is irrelevant how many people voted to leave. Would we be having this debate about leaving if it was 48 leave 52 remain? No - the vote would have been upheld and that would have been the end of it. The reason why the vote is not being upheld is because UK is a country ruled not by the government or the people but by the cooporations and people with money.

By the way - I did not vote in the original referendum. However I, as many of the people that I know would absolutely vote in the next one and we would vote leave. Because this Brexit circus is no longer about leaving EU it's about how much democracy means to UK people.

During the Brexit campaign, the Leave was overwhelmingly giving Norway as the model for the UK. A deal was portrayed as the easiest deal in history and no-deal was never mentioned. Farage stated that if Remain won by less than 60% then he would want another referendum.

[meridian]

What a ridiculous comparison. The premise of the vote was set out by the government (supposedly elected individuals via a democratic route). And that premise was - if we vote out - we are out. That's what people voted for. There wasn't a third option. The vote was a yes or a no.

True-ish. It ignores that this was an advisory vote, and ignores that there was a deliberately misleading campaign to promise all the upsides of a vote to leave with none of the downsides (any downsides being dismissed as "Project Fear").

However, Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a valid 52/48 split:

It's irrelevant however many people voted to remain. Just like it is irrelevant how many people voted to leave. Would we be having this debate about leaving if it was 48 leave 52 remain? No - the vote would have been upheld and that would have been the end of it.

It's not irrelevant that the vote was close. It also (in my opinion) wouldn't have been irrelevant if the vote was the other way. There are (again, imo) serious underlying concerns of millions of people that simply aren't being heard or dealt with - contrary to the never-ending spin of "full employment", etc

Would we be having this debate if the vote was the other way? Of course we would have - Farage himself said that a 52/48 split would be "unfinished business by a long way".

Would that have been the right debate to have? Not in my opinion - regardless of the vote, Brexit is being used to mask the failure of this and previous governments to fix the real problems. The real debate to have is "why is this country so divided?".

The reason why the vote is not being upheld is because UK is a country ruled not by the government or the people but by the cooporations and people with money.

The vote has been upheld. It was an advisory vote that Parliament has done nothing but take that advice and consider leaving for the past three years. The issue with leaving is that there is no version of leaving that Brexiters want. Norway? Switzerland? Canada? These were all options presented before the referendum, that now nobody is pushing forward.

Three card monte.

By the way - I did not vote in the original referendum. However I, as many of the people that I know would absolutely vote in the next one and we would vote leave. Because this Brexit circus is no longer about leaving EU it's about how much democracy means to UK people.

Parliament is supreme in the UK democratic system. It is a different democratic system than in other countries (hence my original post), but no less or more democratic for it - it has flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths.

If you want a different form of democracy then you need to start with your own Parliament.

[woohoo]

And the UK?

Who knows anymore.

[cannon999]

Democracy does not mean that just because there is a winner then the minorities are ignored. Your thinking is the same as Mugabe and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We won so we will smash up the bars and kill the Christians.

In any other democracy there would need to be a decisive majority for a referendum result. Furthermore, leave won by fraud in the UK referendum.

What a ridiculous comparison. The premise of the vote was set out by the government (supposedly elected individuals via a democratic route). And that premise was - if we vote out - we are out. That's what people voted for. There wasn't a third option. The vote was a yes or a no. It's irrelevant however many people voted to remain. Just like it is irrelevant how many people voted to leave. Would we be having this debate about leaving if it was 48 leave 52 remain? No - the vote would have been upheld and that would have been the end of it. The reason why the vote is not being upheld is because UK is a country ruled not by the government or the people but by the cooporations and people with money.

By the way - I did not vote in the original referendum. However I, as many of the people that I know would absolutely vote in the next one and we would vote leave. Because this Brexit circus is no longer about leaving EU it's about how much democracy means to UK people.

[WTFH]

You can argue for the EU and stress many positive aspects of membership. But only an idiot or someone with a vested interest would ever say it's a democracy.

And the UK?