voting population of UK - 17.6m leave votes = people who didn't vote for Brexit
Which is a huge majority and by that measure we shouldn't leave. I don't agree with that standpoint either, but both your viewpoint and that are misrepresentations.
Those that didn't vote either way, don't count, and shouldn't count.
Percentages in elections are of active voters.
Unless they were prevented from voting some way, their post-facto protests are meaningless.
You can't have your cake (not give a toss about votes and not participate) and eat it (still have your opinion matter on voted topics) too
But in democracies the percentages who want this or that are counted through voting. So technically, it is correct.
About 16 will have voted to leave, 16 to remain, 11 who didn't vote but could have, and 23 didn't get to vote because they were too young or aren't British citizens (even if they've lived here for 20 years and have British kids)
(based on 1 million births and deaths a year, with about 2:1 ratio of people dying voting leave (in line with surveys that the older you were the more likely you were to vote and the more likely you were to vote leave)
So about 24% would have voted to leave, 24% to remain, 17% didn't vote, 5% who can now vote but couldn't, and and 30% who still can't vote.
The problem is that only the views of the 24% that voted to leave, and arguably the 41% that voted leave or didn't vote, seem to matter.
Those are also not meant to vote, and rightly so. If you aren't a citizen (or aren't yet), you shouldn't decide of the country's matters. And if you're not an adult, you are considered not mature enough to have an opinion. That's part for the course in every democracy.
In a democracy, "X of the the country wants Y" = "X of people qualified to vote && who voted, want Y".
Even in the suffrage and civil rights era, nobody seriously complained that this doesn't include 10 year olds or non-citizens of a country.
>The problem is that only the views of the 24% that voted to leave, and arguably the 41% that voted leave or didn't vote, seem to matter.
That's not a problem, that's how democracy works. Want your opinion to matter? 1) Become an adult (e.g. just wait), 2) Become a citizen (if you're a foreigner) 3) DO vote (don't stay at home). Else the others who are will determine the result.
The real problem is the hypocrisy. In the sense that all of the above wouldn't be considered a problem if the majority had voted to remain.
Imagine if Texas had a vote for independence, but only people born in Texas, and not those that moved from say Chicago, were allowed to vote.
> In the sense that all of the above wouldn't be considered a problem if the majority had voted to remain.
Except it would have been Farage was already calling for a second referendum before the results from the first came in. Rees Mogg and Owen Patterson were also big fans of two referendums, one to start the process, and one to confirm it 3 years later.
Sure, hypocrisy on both sides ensure it would be called a problem by the other side.
But it wouldn't be called a problem from _the same_ people today calling it a problem.
So, it's the kind that's only a problem when your side loses -- in which case, it can be discarded as the usual complaint of any losing side ever.
That's 3 years ago. There are ~3-4 mil. more young people that are now elligible for vote. Should they have no say?
They don't have a say in any other long-term-implementation matter which was voted before they became eligible for vote, so why would this be an exception?