RB> And you to ignore one: with certain exceptions, the populations affected RB> by all this were never asked what _they_ wanted. Everything was decided RB> by politicians, who may have been elected, but certainly were not RB> authorized to make such radical decisions as they did over their RB> consistuency's heads.
I will have to dissagree here with you. You probably expected that too.
I'm looking at the constitution in my own country. What I can see is that these politicians were within their full right to act. The Supreme Court did not strike it down, on top of that we have a Constitutional Court ,,. it didn't strike it down either, ergo fully within the confines of the law and what is acceptable for the country.
That's how it goes in a democracy, you exercise your right to co-govern when you colour the dot, once that's done it is in someone else's hands.
This country in its 186 years of existance has had one referendum ... the outcome was grossly disregarded to avoid a civil war ... we're talking very early 50-ies.
A referendum is just what it is ... asking an opinion, non-binding. The thing that made it such a big deal was that Cameron was so sure of himself that he attached his political well-being to the outcome.
Well, such is life. If you burn your butt, you gotta sit on the blisters.
RB> You may say "then why weren't the governments voted out?". But to vote a RB> government out, you have to have an alternative.
No, a single vote of confidence in parliament is all that it takes, then come early general elections.
RB> Ever hear of the AfD (Alternative fuer Deutschland)?
Yes, and voting for such a party is not smart. They have a one-point political platform, kinda like the German Greens [and also the Belgian Greens], once elected and seated they got in trouble ... real fast ... same will happen to AFD ... I compare that to voting for Trump.
RB> Anyway, we have a drift from the political center to the right and left, RB> accompanied by ever lower election participation.
If you mean voter turn-out ... it is generally pretty good here as we are obliged to vote.
RB>WD> I'm 65, so I can't count either.
RB> You wouldn't count if you were 35, nor would I. The politicians had a RB> grand idea - one that had the real advantage of giving them more power RB> and money to spend - and that was that. Now _we_, you, I and all the rest RB> who had no say in the matter, have to pay the bills and be treated like RB> children by our overpaid "betters" based in Brussels. I'm not the only RB> one who doesn't like that situation.
The UK about 2 years ago finished paying-off its war debt for WW1 ... they paid for 96 years. The bill for WW2 is even more attrocious ... plus there's the human cost.
My opinion is that what we pay for the EU to ensure now 71 years without an armed conflict, without massive bloodshed, without misery, without tears shed and with the economic benefit ... is a small price compared to the real price of the devastation after an extended military conflict.
Look at what the USA got itself into, and Afghanistan and Iraq are only regional conflicts. That debt will never be paid in full.
I compare it to Fidonet. All those who are not in power used to have their mouth full about the power-abuse by the *Cs, while the majority of the *Cs were trying their best to do a good job.
People just love peeing against a high tree. Makes them feel important.
