This isn't democracy.

There was overwhelming support for the referendum to settle the question, all of the major parties backed the principle of a referendum and 89% of the public wanted one.

Rejecting democracy is fascism as you are disagreeing with the majority of the public and rejecting their view as it does not adhere to yours ! Study left wing fascism and you will see you tick tose boxes !

The public have been informed on this vote for about 2 years or so now. They were fully informed. Their have been numerous debates and publications for both sides. The referendum was announced long in advance. On the day people chose whether to go to the poles and vote or not. They voted to leave ! That is democracy in action I don't know where you have been if you have missed all this ?.

As a sideline did you know only 36% of 18-25year olds actually bothered to vote !!

Because this is an incredibly complex decision which most of the electorate isn't in the slightest bit informed about. If there was a reasonable belief that the majority of the electorate would put genuine effort into understanding the complexity of the issue and would listen to expert advice then there wouldn't be an issue. But this clearly isn't the case, the majority of the justifications people have used for leaving the EU have either been reasons that have nothing to do with the EU, reasons that won't change by leaving the EU, reasons that are the fault of the UK government and angry people who don't want "to be told what to do by Brussels", despite not having the first clue of what that actually means. Representative Democracy exists because of the understanding that politics is complicated and key policy decisions - and this is policy, not a constitutional issue - should be made by people whose job it is to understand all of the facts and to make decisions based on evidence.

There being a high voter turnout has absolutely nothing to do with people being informed. There is also a massive difference between a general election, where you choose a group of politicians based on your values on a relatively short-term basis, and a decision like this which is highly technical and permanent. It has also repeatedly been shown that the electorate doesn't even understand basic facts about the issue. The Leave campaign also constantly lied and made promises that they knew they couldn't keep, and have already started to admit this. I do not understand why you think a vote on this basis is valid.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had ruled out a referendum unless there were changes in the EU treaties so that point isn't correct.

There being a high voter turnout has absolutely nothing to do with people being informed.

There is also a massive difference between a general election, where you choose a group of politicians based on your values on a relatively short-term basis, and a decision like this which is highly technical and permanent. It has also repeatedly been shown that the electorate doesn't even understand basic facts about the issue

The Leave campaign also constantly lied and made promises that they knew they couldn't keep, and have already started to admit this. I do not understand why you think a vote on this basis is valid.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had ruled out a referendum unless there were changes in the EU treaties so that point isn't correct.

I now see why you're such a fan of the EU, you don't want a democracy, you want a technocratic society. If people can't be trusted in a referendum why can they in an election?

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, because those leaflets weren't full of lies.



I keep asking what lies the remain voters told, and nobody's delivered so far. I keep hearing a lot of things from leavers who clam up when asked to explain. Maybe you can enlighten me?

.

I'd be very much in favour of a more technocratic society, although I still fundamentally believe in democracy. But a belief in democracy is not the same thing as a belief in direct democracy.

"This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence – far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) – has been made without any appropriate checks and balances."

"Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences."

"That’s why enacting, say, a constitutional amendment generally requires clearing far higher hurdles than passing a spending bill. Yet the current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age."I couldn't agree more, this isn't democracy in my eyes. For a modern democracy, I'm pretty shocked that such a detrimental decision could be left up to the general public alone with no system of checks and balances.

I don't applaud the US for their rigid way of going about things, infact I find it ridiculous that the "most powerful man in the world" has to fall to his knees in front of his own government in attempt to get certain things through and frequently to no avail but honestly, we really could have done with implementing some elements of this system of checks and balances in the recent referendum.

It's arguable that a vote to leave was the majority decision, and it definitely does not feel like one.

So a majority of over 1.2 million is arguable ? That is greater than the poplation of our second largest city - birmingham !! With the highest voter turnout for over 10 years !

How will you leavers respond to the sons of EU citizens (who have been funding through their EU taxes UK universities) who want to UK that they will now have to pay the same tuition fees as an overseas citizen? It seems extremely unfair and ungrateful in my opinion, specially given that they have funded UK's education system as much as UK citizens have.

How will you leavers respond to the sons of EU citizens (who have been funding through their EU taxes UK universities) who want to UK that they will now have to pay the same tuition fees as an overseas citizen? It seems extremely unfair and ungrateful in my opinion, specially given that they have funded UK's education system as much as UK citizens have.

If they have been contributing long enough they should be applicable for citizenship ! If they were born here they should be applicable for citizenship !

If they haven't claimed citizenship even though they are eligable - they are probably avoiding paying the higher UK taxes !

Quite simply really. Because they are an overseas citizen and should pay what their education is worth without being subsidised by a foreign government.

They are contributing from the common european funds, paid by common european taxes: Citizens of the European Union are all contributing to University funds all over the EU (including the UK).

Not that simple. They have been contributing to that system for a long time. A chinese, a russian or a brazilian has never contributed through their direct taxes to pay for UK universities, while every EU citizen has.

Not that simple. They have been contributing to that system for a long time. A chinese, a russian or a brazilian has never contributed through their direct taxes to pay for UK universities, while every EU citizen has.