DR>>>> This smacks more of a dictatorship than a democracy.
MvdV>>> Pardon my French, but this is baloney. The one calling for the MvdV>>> referendum was democratically elected. Nobody put a gun to the MvdV>>> people's head and told them to vote for "leave".
DR>> I didn't say that it *was* a dictatorship, I said it was tending DR>> towards a dictatorship under the guise of democratic freedom.
You used the word "smacks" which is not in my vocabulary. So consider it a "lost in translation" case.
In any case, I disagree. Yes, the people were not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But adult voters know or at least should know, that is what politicians do. And so the voters should take that into account when making up their mind.
DR> Trying to fix the result of a referendum and succeeding is on the way DR> to being a dictatorship. Dictators are often elected before they DR> become dictators.
Not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not fixing a referendum. It is not on the way to dictatorship, it is part of a mature democracy.
Yes indeed, ever so often elected leaders manage to turn their country into a dictatorship. We see many examples all over the world: Mugabe, Putin, Erdogan...
It is a risk inherent to democracy. It seems that "new democracies" are more vulnareble than the old ones.
Three years ago I would have placed the UK in the lowest risk category. Not any more... Calling for a new election because the outcome was not to his liking is what Erdogan did with the March election for the mayor of Ankara. He declared the election invalid and ordered a redo. Fortunately it failed, but this is what wannabee dictators do: not accepting the result of a democratic election bcause the outcome is "wrong" and calling for a redo and repeat that until the outcome is "right".
Isn't his what is happening in the UK right now? Attempting to have e new referendum because the outcome was "wrong"?
MvdV>>> Which raises the question: If the people of the UK really MvdV>>> wanted a new referendum why did they not act before it was too MvdV>>> late? An oppotunity would heva been when Theresa May called MvdV>>> for an election.
DR> The facts and lies became far more evident after the election so there DR> was no call for a referendum at that point.
Oh, c'mon... From this side of the white cliffs of Dover, it was very clear from the start that what the Brexiteers pesented as fact was untrue.
0.35 Giga Pound a week to the EU? Which could be spend on NHS after Brexit? Sorry, David, any voter believing that deserves what he/she gets.. :-(
DR> Theresa May called the election because she thought, as the opinion DR> polls suggested that the Conservatives were doing quite well,
So much for opinion polls....
DR> that it would give her an increased majority to make things easier to DR> push Brexit through parliament. In hindsight I think events would have DR> been the same even with the old parliament.
I agree. Tradition gets in the way of making a compromise...
DR>>>> No! A two thirds majority should be to *change* the status quo!
MvdV>>> [advocate of devil mode]
MvdV>>> The status quo is that the UK has decided to leave. Has been MvdV>>> the status quo for over three years. Reversing that decision MvdV>>> is changing the status quo.
DR>> The status quo is that, at the present moment, we *are* members DR>> of the EU and that's what we would be voting on.
A member that has decided to leave...
DR> It depends on what the referendum asks us to vote on. If the question DR> is, "Should we overturn the result of the previous referendum" then DR> that is the status quo. If a new referendum ask the same question as DR> the last time then that presupposes the status quo is that we are at DR> present members of the EU.
But of course the Brexiteers would never agree to a 2/3 majority in the latter case.
