Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We live in a democracy. If the majority vote results in a decision we don't agree with we have to accept that fact.


Please, no more childish petitions or questioning the result. If youngsters, Londoners and the Scottish voters had turned out in greater numbers Remain would have won.


If these people can't be bothered to get out of bed or brave a bit of rain don't blame 17.4m people.


Enough is enough. What whingers seem to be missing here is the world is in awe of The UK for such a brave defence of democracy/sovereignty in the face of such vested interests.

Hi keano,


Please could you explain what you mean by the expression 'democracy'?


Ideally, you might place your explanation in the context of the central genealogies of the concept by those who have spent lifetimes thinking about it, for example John Dunn (search in Amazon: Dunn, democracy).

Hi Jaywalker,


Without getting into the realms of political philosophy, more than 45m registered to vote in the referendum after a two day extension for late registrants. Around 11.3m of those registered didn't or were unable to vote for whatever reason.


Scotland's turnout was disappointing. The 18-35s vote was disappointing. The turnout in London was disappointing.


To say the result is undemocratic/unfair etc is naive. If you want to blame anyone blame Remain supporters in the above categories.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll 'whinge' as much as I want to thanks and

> apart from Trump and Le Pen..... Who is in awe of

> the stupid out vote based on lies.



Anyone who understands the idea of democracy.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'll 'whinge' as much as I want to thanks and

> > apart from Trump and Le Pen..... Who is in awe

> of

> > the stupid out vote based on lies.

>

>

> Anyone who understands the idea of democracy.



Surely part of living in a democracy is the right to moan about the outcome of you lose?


Especially if it's a close run thing, and it looks like those who won lied to do so?


Or is there a rule that says if you lose you have shut up? Didn't think this was liars poker...

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, but I am not going to sit idly whilst Boris

> and co drive this country over a cliff.


We're all worried about the future Loz. Freedom is a scary prospect. You're not going to stand idly. Fair enough. What are you going to do then and contribute to a new dynamic Britain, whinge and talk Britain down or help unleash the potential?

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi JoeLeg

>

> It was a very ugly campaign and both sides should

> be ashamed of their exaggerated figures and spin

> (some may say lies).

>

> Personally, I thought the hijacking of Jo Cox's

> tragic death for Remain ends trumped any ?350m a

> week fib.



Well, I do say lies. You can of course disagree, and you're free to call it a 'fib', though I'm also free to say that when you allow the electorate to think that (and we all now they did), it goes a bit beyond a fib.

But then that's the beauty of a democracy, we can hold differing opinions and talk about it, even after the event.


I didn't seech hijack the tragic murder of Jo Cox anywhere; can you provide a link to anything backing that up?

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry, but I am not going to sit idly whilst

> Boris

> > and co drive this country over a cliff.

>

> What are you going to do then and

> contribute to a new dynamic Britain, whinge and

> talk Britain down or help unleash the potential?



Openly criticising something we disagree with an analysing what's happened is an important part of working out what we think should happen. I don't see Loz talking Britain down (a phrase often used by people when they want to accuse someone of a lack of patriotism or generally not supporting the country; I'm sure that's not what you meant?), looks to me like he's wanting to get it back on what he sees as the right path.


Again, that's democracy for you. Just because we disagree with you doesn't automatically make us wrong. And vice versa.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Personally, I thought the hijacking of Jo Cox's

> tragic death for Remain ends trumped any ?350m a

> week fib.


Didn't happen. People like Katie Hopkins tried to claim it happened, but it just didn't. The only hijacking of that tragic incident was from the extreme right trying to say it had been hijacked. You should be ashamed even to make that claim.

etta166 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you so sure that you understand how democracy

> works in the UK?


I hope so

>

> The U.K. has a parliamentary democracy. The

> electorate send representatives to parliament, and

> they make laws on our behalf. The act of

> Parliament that permitted this referendum did not

> incorporate legislation that made the result of

> the referendum binding. It is, therefore,

> advisory.


Agreed

>

> It would be completely democratic, within the

> rules of the U.K. democracy, for parliament to

> vote on, and reject, invoking Art 50 of the Lisbon

> treaty. It might not be popular, it probably would

> be morally wrong. But it would be democratic.


Agreed if Parliament voted to rescind prior parliamentary agreements on EU legislation, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht etc. Constitutionally, Parliament cannot be bound by laws made by previous Parliaments.

>

> Petitioning your MP, or whinging as you put it,

> about a decision that you don't agree with is also

> a large part of how U.K. democracy works.


Agreed. Although you may be wasting your time.

>

> If we lived in a plebiscite democracy, or had

> proportional representation, then you would be

> correct that a minority simply has to accept a

> majority vote. But that is not the case here.


See replies above.


On your last paragraph, Sorry, you are wrong here. The rules for this referendum were quite clear. yes or no, the most votes win. Most people understood that. Yes, constitutionally the result is advisory. Whoe betide the politicians, like David Lammy, who decide 17.4m voters are wrong and they know what's best for them

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And I thought lies around immigration that may

> have led to a mentally vulnerable man murdering an

> MP equally diplorable.


Don't be silly blah blah. There is no causal link here no matter how Remain tried to create one. The man was unfortunately mentally unstable.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And I thought lies around immigration that may

> > have led to a mentally vulnerable man murdering

> an

> > MP equally diplorable.

>

> Don't be silly blah blah. There is no causal link

> here no matter how Remain tried to create one. The

> man was unfortunately mentally unstable.


Again, can you provide any links to anything to back that up?

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And I thought lies around immigration that may

> > have led to a mentally vulnerable man murdering

> an

> > MP equally diplorable.

>

> Don't be silly blah blah. There is no causal link

> here no matter how Remain tried to create one. The

> man was unfortunately mentally unstable.


He was also involved with Britian First who two weeks before the murder told members that any 'muslims in offical positions, like MPs and Mayors were now enemies of the state'. I think it's clear where his motivation lay and why he selected his local MP. She had publically worked for taking Syrian refugees. You have no way of knowing either if Jo Cox' active local campiagining for remain is what provoked his interest in her. So best not to make assumptions about her murder either way eh - or make claims that the remain camp used her murder for gain when they didn't as well.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Amazing. Now could you cut and paste an AI summary of the defence case for Andrew M-W? 
    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  5. Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility. With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
    • Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...