Equal votes for all ?

[thebishbus]

Is it just me, or have other people concerns that there appears to be an elitist attitude from some re-mainers towards voting values . You know the ones I mean, where the posters are saying that the leave vote should be overturned because the voters did not understand it. The voters are accused of, being too thick, uneducated or of low I.Q , therefore their votes should be ignored or not allowed in the first place.

I see according to some press reports, the same attitude is developing in of all places, the Labour Party,where MP's are going to ignore masses of Labour Voters . Worrying times for democracy I think.

Is it not time re-mainers accepted the vote, the Scotts got the chip off their shoulders, the unions stopped trying to bring the government down ,and the whole UK pull together to make Britain Great again, thus providing a good future for us and our children. Come on Brit's, for a prosperous future, get on with it.

 

Rant over. Brian B.

 

PS I see another reason the re-mainers want the election results overturned, is because of the pre- election lies, but the lies were on both sides surely. To use this as a reason would probably nullify every election held.

[colin]

We seem to have gone from the Conservative party tearing itself apart over the EU to now Labour tearing themselves apart.

A MP is elected to represent their constituency, so if their area voted to remain it seems fair enough that they should vote in opposition, yesterday a Labour MP was asked about this, he is from an area which voted remain, and his intention was to against, fair enough, but then he was asked if his area had voted leave would he, he replied no, that IMO is unacceptable.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2017-01-21 11:53 AM

 

We seem to have gone from the Conservative party tearing itself apart over the EU to now Labour tearing themselves apart.

A MP is elected to represent their constituency, so if their area voted to remain it seems fair enough that they should vote in opposition, yesterday a Labour MP was asked about this, he is from an area which voted remain, and his intention was to against, fair enough, but then he was asked if his area had voted leave would he, he replied no, that IMO is unacceptable.

But that is the whole point of an MP. They are not the delegates of their constituency party, to do as they are told, they are elected to act in the best interests of their constituency, as they judge that interest, and they are supposed to exercise that judgement without fear or favour.

 

If the constituency party doesn't like the way the member they chose (and the local electorate elected), behaves in office, they can de-select them for the next election and try someone else - who the electorate may, or may not, then elect. That's the way it works.

[Brian Kirby]

thebishbus - 2017-01-21 10:42 AM

 

Is it just me, or have other people concerns that there appears to be an elitist attitude from some re-mainers towards voting values . You know the ones I mean, where the posters are saying that the leave vote should be overturned because the voters did not understand it. The voters are accused of, being too thick, uneducated or of low I.Q , therefore their votes should be ignored or not allowed in the first place.

I see according to some press reports, the same attitude is developing in of all places, the Labour Party,where MP's are going to ignore masses of Labour Voters . Worrying times for democracy I think.

Is it not time re-mainers accepted the vote, the Scotts got the chip off their shoulders, the unions stopped trying to bring the government down ,and the whole UK pull together to make Britain Great again, thus providing a good future for us and our children. Come on Brit's, for a prosperous future, get on with it.

 

Rant over. Brian B.

 

PS I see another reason the re-mainers want the election results overturned, is because of the pre- election lies, but the lies were on both sides surely. To use this as a reason would probably nullify every election held.

A majority is just that. It is simply the term used to describe the greater number of people who agree about an issue under consideration. It is perfectly possible for majorities to be wrong, while remaining the majority.

 

Where an issue is technically complex, at least insofar as its long term implications are concerned, the risk of a "wrong" decision grows, as not all participants will have the same information at their disposal when reaching their voting decision. This is not because they are unintelligent, or even uninformed, but because the issues to be taken into account were complex, and their implications far reaching and multi-faceted.

 

Where, as was the case with the Brexit referendum (on both sides of the argument), the electorate is fed varying strains of exaggeration and opinion, with little to no factual support, the risk of people being, or becoming, confused or misinformed, is greater again. There was ample evidence, post the vote, that this had happened on both sides.

 

In a "normal" election this does not matter significantly, because the result can be reversed at a subsequent election, if people feel that they were misled into voting the wrong way. Were that not the case, we should always have the same government in control. Parties vie for power, they make claims and promises for what they will do, they get in, they get found out, and they get the sack. That is why people complain so loudly about the unreliability and dishonesty of politicians.

 

The Brexit vote was different in that the result is not reversible after five years. As things stand, we shall have to live with it for much longer than five years, probably a generation, possibly longer. Yet, in the absence of anything resembling facts, the vote was treated just like a national election, with two groups making more and more exaggerated and improbable claims for what the future would look like.

 

So, to me, the argument that the majority vote must dictate our path, in the face of whatever disadvantages may be revealed once negotiations begin, is a suspension of intelligence and common sense. Only when we know the outcome of the negotiations, will it be possible to decide, on the basis of fact, whether we are better in, or out. Only at that point, whether through a parliamentary vote, or another referendum, can the decision be confirmed as being in the national interest.

[nowtelse2do]

There are those that say the referendum wasn't binding, if that's true then why was there a referendum in the first place?

 

MP's on all sides voted 6 to 1 for a referendum, surely that's binding enough, and that result should stand it's called democracy

 

Dave

[antony1969]

nowtelse2do - 2017-01-21 6:12 PM

 

There are those that say the referendum wasn't binding, if that's true then why was there a referendum in the first place?

 

MP's on all sides voted 6 to 1 for a referendum, surely that's binding enough, and that result should stand it's called democracy

 

Dave

 

Its called democracy unless of course your on the losing side ... Then its called all manner of things ... Its the world we live in Young Dave ... Losing honourably and with dignity used to be looked on with respect ... Now of course your a loop if you don't kick up a fuss , march , get an on line petition for another go , riot , cry claiming your whole world has caved in , you were robbed or any of the other long winded but ultimately sore loser excuses we have to listen to ... Glad Im not a loser

[nowtelse2do]

A comment from someone who reads the Independent.

 

" Only the EU, and the polititions that dance to their tune, ignore referendums".

 

Remember France, Ireland, Greece and Holland.

 

Dave

 

 

[teflon2]

Brian who decides that the majority is wrong ? perhaps the minority ! John (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

teflon2 - 2017-01-21 6:49 PM

 

Brian who decides that the majority is wrong ? perhaps the minority ! John (lol)

No "one" decides. Time alone proves whether the majority, or the minority, were right. But, a complex and irreversible decision, made in the almost total absence of fact, with proponents of both camps exaggerating and in some cases lying, hardly has the greatest chance of achieving the right outcome. That is why I think we should take a second look at this gift horse's mouth - once we have a gift horse's mouth to have a proper look at! Anything less is merely an act of faith, and I don't trust faith - especially other people's faith! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

nowtelse2do - 2017-01-21 6:12 PM

 

There are those that say the referendum wasn't binding, if that's true then why was there a referendum in the first place?

 

MP's on all sides voted 6 to 1 for a referendum, surely that's binding enough, and that result should stand it's called democracy

 

Dave

Surely you know why there was a referendum, Dave? Cameron abdicated from his responsibilities as an MP, leave alone a PM, and dumped the decision onto the people, rather than take a decision himself. Then, of course, he basically ran away when he saw what a mess he'd made.

 

Someone, of course, elected him as an MP, then others elected him leader of his party, and others again elected his party to govern, so he became PM. Great majority decisions, those! Funny thing, democracy, isn't it! :-D

[nowtelse2do]

Brian Kirby - 2017-01-21 7:43 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2017-01-21 6:12 PM

 

There are those that say the referendum wasn't binding, if that's true then why was there a referendum in the first place?

 

MP's on all sides voted 6 to 1 for a referendum, surely that's binding enough, and that result should stand it's called democracy

 

Dave

Surely you know why there was a referendum, Dave? Cameron abdicated from his responsibilities as an MP, leave alone a PM, and dumped the decision onto the people, rather than take a decision himself. Then, of course, he basically ran away when he saw what a mess he'd made.

 

Someone, of course, elected him as an MP, then others elected him leader of his party, and others again elected his party to govern, so he became PM. Great majority decisions, those! Funny thing, democracy, isn't it! :-D

 

Couldn't agree more, total coward. He said he would start the referendum straight away if he failed to get a good result on immigration. Hadn't even got an exit plan and didn't need a staying plan. I'm not sure if he should be brought to account somehow because of his actions.

 

Up to now, the country isn't doing too bad (apart from the £ slipping) but that is not surprising under the circumstances. Definatly not as bad as the establishment were making it out like it was going to be, plenty lies there, or were they just guessing it would be bad?

 

Dave

 

Dave

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-01-21 7:37 PM

 

teflon2 - 2017-01-21 6:49 PM

 

Brian who decides that the majority is wrong ? perhaps the minority ! John (lol)

No "one" decides. Time alone proves whether the majority, or the minority, were right. But, a complex and irreversible decision, made in the almost total absence of fact, with proponents of both camps exaggerating and in some cases lying, hardly has the greatest chance of achieving the right outcome. That is why I think we should take a second look at this gift horse's mouth - once we have a gift horse's mouth to have a proper look at! Anything less is merely an act of faith, and I don't trust faith - especially other people's faith! :-D

 

Given that despite all the Remoaners so called expert opinions..... the sky never fell in :D ..... add into the mix that a UK friendly President is now running the USA, plus the likelihood that France and Holland will also have a change at top to Anglophiles.......Mrs Merkel is hamstrung as she has her work cut out to cling onto power.........The EU is fighting a losing battle against the rise of anti EU parties......

 

I doubt we could ask for a better herd of gift horses, as we start to renegotiate "OUR" terms for Europe to trade with us B-) .........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-01-22 8:59 AM.................Given that despite all the Remoaners so called expert opinions..... the sky never fell in :D ..... add into the mix that a UK friendly President is now running the USA, plus the likelihood that France and Holland will also have a change at top to Anglophiles.......Mrs Merkel is hamstrung as she has her work cut out to cling onto power.........The EU is fighting a losing battle against the rise of anti EU parties......

 

I doubt we could ask for a better herd of gift horses, as we start to renegotiate "OUR" terms for Europe to trade with us B-) .........

Oh, Dave, you're such an optimist! :-D

 

1 We havent yet left the EU, and we don't yet know the terms on offer. Only when we know the terms, and have actually left, will we know whose forecasts were right. The sky is unlikely to fall in, but it may well descend over time. You expect 100% accuracy from "experts". I think that is unrealistic. I note you and others have been quite happy to quote those other "experts" who were saying we'd all get rich by leaving. It isn't the experts who tell one what one wants to hear that one should listen to (but not believe), it is those whose arguments convince.

 

2 Trump's UK friendly credentials have yet to be tested. Do you really think he's going to offer terms that don't "put America first" (with the implication, to me, that those terms will put UK second). No deal is better than a bad deal, to coin a phrase? :-)

 

4 Anglophiles in power in France? Wait for the outcome of the election first? Then wait to see if the new president is Anglophile? Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with neutral. Ditto Germany.

 

5 EU struggling? Only if you see it in that way. It is confronting change to some of its shibboleths, it will, eventually, have to accept some change. When we see how it has changed, we shall know whether we should have left, or not. However, that knowledge looks like being somewhat academic, as it seems we shall be leaving whether or not we all get an economic poke in the eye in consequence.

 

Chickens, hatch, and count? :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-01-22 12:58 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-01-22 8:59 AM.................Given that despite all the Remoaners so called expert opinions..... the sky never fell in :D ..... add into the mix that a UK friendly President is now running the USA, plus the likelihood that France and Holland will also have a change at top to Anglophiles.......Mrs Merkel is hamstrung as she has her work cut out to cling onto power.........The EU is fighting a losing battle against the rise of anti EU parties......

 

I doubt we could ask for a better herd of gift horses, as we start to renegotiate "OUR" terms for Europe to trade with us B-) .........

Oh, Dave, you're such an optimist! :-D

 

1 We havent yet left the EU, and we don't yet know the terms on offer. Only when we know the terms, and have actually left, will we know whose forecasts were right. The sky is unlikely to fall in, but it may well descend over time. You expect 100% accuracy from "experts".

 

Currently I'd say the Brexiteers experts appear to be winning hands down :D ..........

 

......and curiously I do feel optimistic :-S ..........considering I'd always been a glass half empty kinda chap before ;-) ........ I actually think the establishment be it UK or EU have actually had a proper wake up call at long last, and Saint Theresa does appear to be listening so far even if Junker/Merkel and Co are not B-) .......

 

 

[RogerC]

With regard to the MP's who are intending to work against the 'Exit' vote surely the job of an elected official is to:

A:  Work as he sees fit in the best interests of his constituency or in accordance with his constituency determination.

B:  Conduct/act/adhere in accordance with Party lines.

C:  Where democracy on a national level i.e. 'The People'  has determined a certain course of action through majority determination then it is the job of the elected official (MP) to work in total and utter commitment to that decision.

It is not, in the case of national issues, the job of any MP to represent his constituents leanings as the 'National decision' overrides 'regional considerations'.

Therefore it is my opinion that any MP who finds it impossible to be fully supportive and work towards obtaining the most beneficial outcome for the UK.....'The Nation'... in the EU exit negotiations should resign.

[Archiesgrandad]

I've read through as much of the bullsh**t and waffle as I can cope with for the moment so I've scrolled on to the end to make a comment.

I don't recall at the time of the referendum anyone campaigning against a referendum on the grounds that the result would be wrong, or that some of the people would not be capable of understanding all the implications and coming to a reasonable conclusion as to how they should vote. I can recall nothing of a campaign to give the losing side the right to a second referendum if it went the wrong way for them.

I have no recollection of any of the clairvoyants who are now so good at their art/trade/ connections with the life beyond, that they are now able to predict the outcome of negotiations that have not yet taken place, predict the behavour of all manner of business leaders in the future, or anticipate the decisions of governments which have not yet been elected,or advising that some of us might not be capable of making such a decision, or that the decision should only stand if the BBC or other parts of the Media world approved.

None of us has the slightest idea of how the withdrawal from the EU will pan out. We might have hopes, we might have dreams, we might equally have nightmares , all about the future, but nobody knows a thing.

We have an understanding of the system of democracy, developed over the past 800 years, by which we are governed. It has it's shortcomings, what system doesn't, but nowhere in the world is there a system that works better.We the people took part in a referendum to decide if we should leave the EU. The question asked was quite simple, did we want in or out.There were no extra questions about might we change our minds if the result was wrong. No suggestion that people who did not vote for the result we wanted were somehow inferior and therefore their vote should not count. It was the democratic will of the people that we should leave the EU. No one has challenged the validity of the referendum, so it stands.

It is now in the best interests of the people of the UK that we should stop endlessly moaning about the result, stop trying to convince themselves that all the others are out of step and not them. For pities sake stop giving comfort to our European neighbours by saying it was all a mistake and we can't manage on our own after all. There was a song around in my childhood about I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter, and one of the lines was " If you can't say anything real nice, it's better not to talk at all that's my advice." I commend it to all those who didn't want this result but were not able to achieve the one they wanted.

AGD

[nowtelse2do]

Out of the 2 or 3 forums i'm on, that's the best most unbiased post i've read AGD. Thank You. ;-)

 

Dave

[Barryd999]

I think everybody accepts or recognises that there was an advisory referendum which legally is no more than a poll and that a very small majority voted to leave.

 

As has been said many times before its not as simple as that being the end of it and we should now all get behind Brexit and us pulling out of the EU. I and others like me are totally opposed to it and until its signed sealed and delivered many including myself will campaign against it. I suspect if it does go ahead and there are still doubts about that many will campaign to rejoin especially if eventually all the "experts" are proved right. Nobody knows what will happen. Those of you who are strongly in the leave camp now may in a few years time be banging on the door of the EU yourselves to be let back in.

 

One things for sure if we are leaving then those of us in the remain camp will do their utmost to make sure our MP's and Parliament knock back any deal thats not favourable.

 

Its a hell of a long way to the finishing line yet. No Fat lady insight for some time yet I suspect.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-01-22 8:32 PMI think everybody accepts or recognises that there was an advisory referendum which legally is no more than a poll and that a very small majority voted to leave.As has been said many times before its not as simple as that being the end of it and we should now all get behind Brexit and us pulling out of the EU. I and others like me are totally opposed to it and until its signed sealed and delivered many including myself will campaign against it. I suspect if it does go ahead and there are still doubts about that many will campaign to rejoin especially if eventually all the "experts" are proved right. Nobody knows what will happen. Those of you who are strongly in the leave camp now may in a few years time be banging on the door of the EU yourselves to be let back in.One things for sure if we are leaving then those of us in the remain camp will do their utmost to make sure our MP's and Parliament knock back any deal thats not favourable. Its a hell of a long way to the finishing line yet. No Fat lady insight for some time yet I suspect.

.....and there's the voice of a member of the 'Dictator Party'   :-).  Sorry Barry but ArchiesGrandad got it right.  Sorry if the likes of yourself and other remainers don't like it.  However now it is up to the politicians to do their duty cross party and in the interests of the country work 'together' to obtain the best terms possible and not allow a divided front to weaken our position..........either that or shall we have referendum after referendum until you and the rest of the 'remain' camp get the result you want??

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-01-22 10:18 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-01-22 8:32 PMI think everybody accepts or recognises that there was an advisory referendum which legally is no more than a poll and that a very small majority voted to leave.As has been said many times before its not as simple as that being the end of it and we should now all get behind Brexit and us pulling out of the EU. I and others like me are totally opposed to it and until its signed sealed and delivered many including myself will campaign against it. I suspect if it does go ahead and there are still doubts about that many will campaign to rejoin especially if eventually all the "experts" are proved right. Nobody knows what will happen. Those of you who are strongly in the leave camp now may in a few years time be banging on the door of the EU yourselves to be let back in.One things for sure if we are leaving then those of us in the remain camp will do their utmost to make sure our MP's and Parliament knock back any deal thats not favourable. Its a hell of a long way to the finishing line yet. No Fat lady insight for some time yet I suspect.

.....and there's the voice of a member of the 'Dictator Party'   :-).  Sorry Barry but ArchiesGrandad got it right.  Sorry if the likes of yourself and other remainers don't like it.  However now it is up to the politicians to do their duty cross party and in the interests of the country work 'together' to obtain the best terms possible and not allow a divided front to weaken our position..........either that or shall we have referendum after referendum until you and the rest of the 'remain' camp get the result you want??

Does the loosing party in a general election give up and call it a day if they lose or do they regroup and keep trying?What if in two years time the negotiations have gone badly and a lot of the experts predictions have started to come true and it does indeed look like Brexit will be a disaster? Do we still forge ahead? Parliament and MP's cannot vote on anything that they know will damage the country. It is also their duty make sure that we do not go down a path of self destruction and if that does look likely I would expect them to do their duty and vote against it.Nobody knows what we have voted for. You and the other leavers took a blind gamble with all our futures and threw away mine and everyones EU Citizenship. We have absolutely no idea what it will look like either. Its just a total leap into the dark. So yes many will be keeping a close eye on proceedings and if it cannot be stopped then at least making sure we are not sold and accept a bum deal.It will be a very bumpy road ahead I suspect.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-01-22 8:32 PM

 

I think everybody accepts or recognises that there was an advisory referendum which legally is no more than a poll and that a very small majority voted to leave.

 

 

Its funny how a advisory referendum is OK to join......but not to leave? *-) ...........

 

BTW if the fat lady doesn't sing then expect a election........and a lot of Remoaner MP's collecting their pensions >:-) .........

 

 

[StuartO]

thebishbus - 2017-01-21 10:42 AMIs it just me, or have other people concerns that there appears to be an elitist attitude from some re-mainers towards voting values . You know the ones I mean, where the posters are saying that the leave vote should be overturned because the voters did not understand it. The voters are accused of, being too thick, uneducated or of low I.Q , therefore their votes should be ignored or not allowed in the first place.I see according to some press reports, the same attitude is developing in of all places, the Labour Party,where MP's are going to ignore masses of Labour Voters . Worrying times for democracy I think.Is it not time re-mainers accepted the vote, the Scotts got the chip off their shoulders, the unions stopped trying to bring the government down ,and the whole UK pull together to make Britain Great again, thus providing a good future for us and our children. Come on Brit's, for a prosperous future, get on with it. Rant over. Brian B. PS I see another reason the re-mainers want the election results overturned, is because of the pre- election lies, but the lies were on both sides surely. To use this as a reason would probably nullify every election held.

 

This thread started off asking whether the electorate for the Refrendum was the right one, composed of people who could  understand the issue and make an informed choice, because the OP felt that suggesting this, or any restriction on voting because people are not very clever, was an elittist approach and therefore wrong.  He reckoned that Remoaners were just complaining this way because they had lost the Referendum.  I haven't heard any Remoaners saying this at all; I suggested that the current wave of popularism, electing people like Donald Trump, begs a question about some people being too thick or gullible to be capable of informed choice but I'm not a Remoaner - I am now enthusiastic about Brexit.

 

Is it worth addressing this question, or not?  The knee jerk reaction seems to be that it's elitist (and therefore unacceptable) to consider it.  But we already exclude some people from having a vote, so we don't have universal franchise, so why not take another look at the criteria?  Not only do some people think our Referendum has taken us down a wrong road but the USA has elected Donald Trump and there is a real chance that oddball or extremist politicians are going to be elected to high office all over Europe, so doesn't it make sense to look at whether and how something might have gone wrong?

 

And is it really elitism when, for example, part of the problem is election fraud by commnity leaders who gather in postal votes in their community to ensure they get used the right way, or tell their people how to vote under threat of disapproval or even violence?  This is happening in UK so do we ignore it and let is grow or do we have a serious look, to see when it can safely be ignored or tolerated?

 

And would it be so unthinkable to require people to be able to understand English before they can have a vote, or to pass a citizenship test to show that they understand enough about our democracy to know what their vote does?

 

So why jump to the conclusion that any idea of this sort automatically means taking away the vote from the less intellegent and reserving it for the more privileged more intellegent?  We already withold a vote from really thick people in UK and the rules even used to say that "idiots" were not allowed to vote.  The wording was changed some time ago to exclude from voting those who are institutionalised because of what are now called serious learning difficulties but it is essentially the same idea.  I think we still exclude prison inmates too, although the EU doesn't think we should.

 

So why not open our minds and look again at our voting system and how we should keep it safe from fraud and either accidental or deliberate abuse?

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

StuartO - 2017-01-23 10:04 AMSo why not open our minds and look again at our voting system and how we should keep it safe from fraud and either accidental or deliberate abuse?

 

 

Joe public I suspect is not too bothered about who votes so long as they're British citizens, they had the opportunity to make the system fairer a while back with a choice to have PR :-| .......In general I'd say your average Brit is happy with the system, so long as the vote rigging by certain communities doesn't get out of hand ;-) ......

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-01-22 1:54 PM..............Therefore it is my opinion that any MP who finds it impossible to be fully supportive and work towards obtaining the most beneficial outcome for the UK.....'The Nation'... in the EU exit negotiations should resign.

OK. But what if that "most beneficial outcome for the UK" comes to be seen as to remain, rather than leave? Do they still resign, because the new information is in conflict with the outcome of the Brexit vote, or what?

[Brian Kirby]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-01-22 6:21 PM I don't recall at the time of the referendum anyone campaigning against a referendum on the grounds that the result would be wrong, or that some of the people would not be capable of understanding all the implications and coming to a reasonable conclusion as to how they should vote. I can recall nothing of a campaign to give the losing side the right to a second referendum if it went the wrong way for them.

I would have thought those risks were self-evident, and would not require a campaign. They are ever present in any vote. The "losing side" is asking for a review of the decision once the full terms are known. That, to me, is just common sense. At present, all we've been offered is a pig in a poke.

 

I have no recollection of any of the clairvoyants who are now so good at their art/trade/ connections with the life beyond, that they are now able to predict the outcome of negotiations that have not yet taken place, predict the behavour of all manner of business leaders in the future, or anticipate the decisions of governments which have not yet been elected,or advising that some of us might not be capable of making such a decision, or that the decision should only stand if the BBC or other parts of the Media world approved.

Setting aside the evident sarcasm, my recollection is there were equal numbers of clairvoyants etc. on both sides, all making similar amounts of noise, all saying the "other side" were wrong, and none shedding light based on fact.

 

None of us has the slightest idea of how the withdrawal from the EU will pan out. We might have hopes, we might have dreams, we might equally have nightmares, all about the future, but nobody knows a thing.

And this gives you no qualms for the future?

 

We have an understanding of the system of democracy, developed over the past 800 years, by which we are governed. It has it's shortcomings, what system doesn't, but nowhere in the world is there a system that works better. We the people took part in a referendum to decide if we should leave the EU. The question asked was quite simple, did we want in or out.There were no extra questions about might we change our minds if the result was wrong. No suggestion that people who did not vote for the result we wanted were somehow inferior and therefore their vote should not count. It was the democratic will of the people that we should leave the EU. No one has challenged the validity of the referendum, so it stands.

It does, and I haven't seen anyone contest that. But, as you state above, it was a simple question about a complex issue which, as again you state above, no-one at present can evaluate, because we don't know what the negotiations will achieve. So, even if the negotiations go badly, and there is general agreement that the outcomes will be detrimental to the national interest, we should carry blindly on? Is that good sense? Really?

 

It is now in the best interests of the people of the UK that we should stop endlessly moaning about the result, stop trying to convince themselves that all the others are out of step and not them. For pities sake stop giving comfort to our European neighbours by saying it was all a mistake and we can't manage on our own after all. ...................AGD

Again, as you have argued above, it was a simple question with unquantifiable implications. Once the negotiations have concluded, those implications can begin to be quantified. If the projections are all good, we leave. But if the projections are all bad? You seem to be saying we should still leave. If that is the best conclusion one can reach, one wonders why on earth we evolved with the most highly developed brains of all mammals. If we do that, we shall have reduced our intellectual status to little better than that of lemmings. (Sorry lemmings! :-D)