Government loses article 50 court fight

It is the word representative they are acting against someone can not claim to represent a group by acting against it wishes

but unfortunately the UK's electorate has decided that they're all suddenly political and economic experts

You are aware of course that it is possible for ordinary people to have informed views on political issues, and that those people are not limited to just your side at all?

You are aware of course that it is possible for ordinary people to have informed views on political issues, and that those people are not limited to just your side at all?

The idea that a small group of representatives should supersede the will of the millions of people they are supposed to represent is something more akin to Putin's Russia or China.

People would be up in arms if Trump tried to challenge Hillary being elected in court.

It is of course possible, but if you're trying to tell me that any significant proportion of the electorate was properly informed then I'd struggle to take that seriously. I'm certainly not suggesting that ignorance is exclusive to Leave voters, but if you're unprepared to educate yourself about a topic sufficiently such that you feel you're in a position to make a personal decision about an issue as important as this, the next best thing is to use the expert consensus. And given that the expert consensus on practically all issues was overwhelmingly on the remain side, I think I'm well justified to argue that Leave supporters cared much less about facts and well-reasoned arguments than Remain supporters.

Well..yes but that also extends to Shelly from Grimsby who hasn't got a GCSE to her name.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And given that the expert consensus on practically all issues was overwhelmingly on the remain side, I think I'm well justified to argue that Leave supporters cared much less about facts and well-reasoned arguments than Remain supporters.

You clearly are not a believer in Parliamentary Democracy, which is fine, but I think all of the Brexiteers who are not (including Nigel Farage, who has many times indicated his disdain for Parliament) should state clearly that they want it to be replaced with dictatorship. The views you espouse would have been fully acceptable to Stalin for example.

Would you apply the same argument to the refugee issue? I am sure the cold, hard facts reveal that they are a net drain on the system, yet of course many (rightfully) don't care about all that and would rather listen to the emotive argument.

People would be up in arms if Trump tried to challenge Hillary being elected in court.

There is not only one metric that matters in the world. You need to look at problems holistically. In the case of the EU, the economy is certainly not the only thing that matters (although it's pretty important, given that it's an economic union) but in pretty much every single aspect, from geopolitics to the environment, the expert opinion was overwhelmingly that it's a bad idea to leave. Refugees are most certainly not a primarily economic issue, it's a humanitarian issue. So it's complete nonsense to analyse it in terms of whether it gives us a net positive effect (and indeed if you asked an economist they would not tell you "It is bad because it costs money" because they'd be intelligent enough to realise that it is not a problem you can find an answer to with economics alone).

I'd also argue that there's a pretty poor emotive argument for leaving the EU. Total sovereignty is impossible in a globalised world and I don't even think it's remotely desirable given the fact that we now live in a world where most important issues are international rather than national, and where competing national interests are putting the human race in serious risk.

Refugees and the EU are many things to many people, the reasons for embracing or rejecting both ranging from pure economics to emotion. Just because you subjectively view refugees as primarily a humanitarian issue does not objectively invalidate another person seeing refugees through a purely economic prism. So I just don't see how someone being for Brexit on emotive grounds and ignoring objective data is somehow wrong, whereas someone being for more refugees on emotive grounds and ignoring objective data is somehow right. I don't think you saying refugees belong under a different sub-heading really changes that.

Why does that necessitate a domestic parliament having to give away powers to international bodies? Why can't those international bodies have more of an advisory role?

If it does not happen there will be riots