4 ms·

This is what makes me dislike politicians, when they do not respect the vote of the public when asked. I would vote for leaving the EU any day, if given the ch

This is what makes me dislike politicians, when they do not respect the vote of the public when asked. I would vote for leaving the EU any day, if given the chance. I also would be very, very angry if the politicians wouldn't respect that outcome if it got to be the case.

RickJWagner 8y ago
I agree. When a fair election is held, the results must be honored. If the outcome is truly that unpopular, then the opposing side should re-group and put it to another vote through the same channels that set up the first election. To do otherwise is anti-democratic, IMHO.
- wereHamster 8y ago
  > When a fair election is held, the results must be honored. Yes, when a /fair/ election is held. However as of late most elections are heavily influenced by outside forces.
- BerislavLopac 8y ago
  The 2016 referendum was neither fair nor election.
- learc83 8y ago
  That's what the article is calling for, another vote. Presumably their parliament would have to authorize it--the same as they did the first vote.
votepaunchy 8y ago
“Both these scenarios are a million miles from what was promised during the referendum campaign, only further exposing the lies and mistruths sold to the public," he wrote in the paper. If Brexit is not what Britains voted for, then carrying through with this is against the will of the people.
anarchy8 8y ago
The role of politicians in a representative democracy is to act as a moderating force against the tyranny of the majority. The pro-brexit camp has been shown to be full of lying propagandists. Another vote seems necessary.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Either you don't trust the people or you do. At a certain point, you should let it go and let the British people see the result of their actions.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
There was no legally binding vote in 2016 on UK leaving the EU.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ploika 8y ago
What outcome should be respected though? Nobody voted for Chequers. Which, obviously, isn't acceptable to the EU either in its current form. A lot of people voted for £350m a week extra for the NHS, continued unfettered access to EU markets (read: things don't get scarcer or more expensive, and my job is safe) while restricting EU immigration, and absolutely no change to the status of Northern Ireland and its border with the Republic. Exactly none of that will come to pass. This whole fiasco is happening because David Cameron took a reckless gamble with people's lives to shut up some backbenchers in his party. That shit makes me dislike politicians.
- stephenboyd 8y ago
  Legally, Brexit was more like an opinion poll. The proper response would have been to recognize the slim majority's interest in leaving, negotiate a Brexit deal before committing to leaving-no-matter-what, and then put that detailed deal to the voters in a legally binding referendum so they could actually know what they're voting for.
torstenvl 8y ago
Two years is a long time. The U.S. House of Representatives has two-year terms. Do you think it would be appropriate not to hold midterm elections because the people have already voted and their votes should be respected? Or is two years long enough to permit the question to be put to voters again?

RickJWagner 8y ago

I agree. When a fair election is held, the results must be honored. If the outcome is truly that unpopular, then the opposing side should re-group and put it to another vote through the same channels that set up the first election. To do otherwise is anti-democratic, IMHO.

wereHamster 8y ago
> When a fair election is held, the results must be honored. Yes, when a /fair/ election is held. However as of late most elections are heavily influenced by outside forces.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
The 2016 referendum was neither fair nor election.
learc83 8y ago
That's what the article is calling for, another vote. Presumably their parliament would have to authorize it--the same as they did the first vote.

votepaunchy 8y ago

“Both these scenarios are a million miles from what was promised during the referendum campaign, only further exposing the lies and mistruths sold to the public," he wrote in the paper. If Brexit is not what Britains voted for, then carrying through with this is against the will of the people.

anarchy8 8y ago

The role of politicians in a representative democracy is to act as a moderating force against the tyranny of the majority. The pro-brexit camp has been shown to be full of lying propagandists. Another vote seems necessary.

noobermin 8y ago
Either you don't trust the people or you do. At a certain point, you should let it go and let the British people see the result of their actions.

BerislavLopac 8y ago

There was no legally binding vote in 2016 on UK leaving the EU.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ploika 8y ago

What outcome should be respected though? Nobody voted for Chequers. Which, obviously, isn't acceptable to the EU either in its current form. A lot of people voted for £350m a week extra for the NHS, continued unfettered access to EU markets (read: things don't get scarcer or more expensive, and my job is safe) while restricting EU immigration, and absolutely no change to the status of Northern Ireland and its border with the Republic. Exactly none of that will come to pass. This whole fiasco is happening because David Cameron took a reckless gamble with people's lives to shut up some backbenchers in his party. That shit makes me dislike politicians.

stephenboyd 8y ago
Legally, Brexit was more like an opinion poll. The proper response would have been to recognize the slim majority's interest in leaving, negotiate a Brexit deal before committing to leaving-no-matter-what, and then put that detailed deal to the voters in a legally binding referendum so they could actually know what they're voting for.

torstenvl 8y ago

Two years is a long time. The U.S. House of Representatives has two-year terms. Do you think it would be appropriate not to hold midterm elections because the people have already voted and their votes should be respected? Or is two years long enough to permit the question to be put to voters again?