I'm confused why my comment has been downvoted.
Theresa May was not voted into government.
Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit.
Quite a disappointing response.
Theresa May was not voted into government.
Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit.
Quite a disappointing response.
People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
With separation of powers and the rule of law.
> And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas.
2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering.
3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere.
4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going?
> Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.
However, "modern democracies" like Switzerland implement tyranny:
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160609/immigrant-family-denied-swis...
http://www.thelocal.ch/20170109/annoying-anti-cow-bell-campa...
(There are more sources for both, in case you don't trust this one)
Direct democracy is good, but we still don't seem to know how to implement it right or make a responsible use of it.
This suggestion is unpopular among people who deny that there are facts and reality. These people exist both on the left (e.g. `social constructivism about science') and the right (e.g. recent trends among some Trump supporters) side of the political spectrum. Anybody who has no trouble with reality and has passed a drivers license should have no problems with it, though.
Clever, wise and motivated people can also be arseholes and vote against you having local passport because you usually wear a tracksuit, are vegan or think cowbells not right.
She was voted into government by her party, just like the leaders of every UK government.
Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of.
As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
I guess no one will truly now know.
I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.