The electorate voted to leave and the elites are actively preventing the leaving from happening. Can you explain why this isn't crystal clear for you?Not to speak for alfons but I'm pretty sure he's not invalidating the result, only calling out the guy itt who's framing brexis as "the electorate" vs "the elites"
Because that’s not really what’s happening? A portion (roughly 50% of the electorate) votes to leave on June 23rd 2016. Since then several polls have shown that the electorate would vote remain on a revote (and some have shown they’d vote leave again, source: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ ). So the question can reasonably be asked does the electorate still want to leave? The other half of your framing, “the elites” are preventing it from happening, is also problematic. One, because “elite” is a pretty nebulous word that implies that politicians (and possibly others? again, nebulous) are part of grand scheme against the electorate. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the U.K., is apparently not an elite though? This seems like the line of thinking people who bought into “drain the swamp” had when voting for an amoral conman with a long history of corruption. Two, these politicians are elected by constituents to represent them. In the 2017 election parties that opposed brexit or think a revote should be held on the net gained seats. Which implies the electorate wanted more representation from those who opposed brexit. If the electorate overwhelmingly wants brexit, then why are they electing people who don’t?The electorate voted to leave and the elites are actively preventing the leaving from happening. Can you explain why this isn't crystal clear for you?
The rest will die off after Brexit when they can't afford gas for heating or we run out of medicine.it's also worth mentioning that a lot of the old white people who voted leave have died off by now since it's been 3.5 years
If you want to be technical, only something like 26% of the electorate actually voted for Brexit, because it has the same problem we encounter with democracies the world over, poor voter turnout. Not to mention, the Brexit being offered is much different than the Brexit that was promised in many of the campaigns and has basically been co-opted by theThe electorate voted to leave and the elites are actively preventing the leaving from happening. Can you explain why this isn't crystal clear for you?
You're wrong though. Being educated has nothing to do with democracy. You can invent your own definition all you like, but that's not what democracy is. Everyone eligible gets to vote, regardless of how educated or informed they may be. Your version is not how a democratic vote works in the United Kingdom.Because that’s not really what’s happening? A portion (roughly 50% of the electorate) votes to leave on June 23rd 2016. Since then several polls have shown that the electorate would vote remain on a revote (and some have shown they’d vote leave again, source: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/ ). So the question can reasonably be asked does the electorate still want to leave? The other half of your framing, “the elites” are preventing it from happening, is also problematic. One, because “elite” is a pretty nebulous word that implies that politicians (and possibly others? again, nebulous) are part of grand scheme against the electorate. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the U.K., is apparently not an elite though? This seems like the line of thinking people who bought into “drain the swamp” had when voting for an amoral conman with a long history of corruption. Two, these politicians are elected by constituents to represent them. In the 2017 election parties that opposed brexit or think a revote should be held on the net gained seats. Which implies the electorate wanted more representation from those who opposed brexit. If the electorate overwhelmingly wants brexit, then why are they electing people who don’t?
The reality is the brexit question was posed in an objectively flawed manor. Do you want to leave the UK, yes or no? Doesn’t leave room for answers like, yes but only if we can maintain open borders with Ireland. Or yes, but only if we can maintain x economic deals with y countries. The way democracy actually works is that decisions are made with an educated population making an informed decision. There is new information (the terms the EU is willing to give the U.K. for leave)so logically speaking it isn’t unreasonable to think a new vote should be held. But I’m not a part of the UK electorate so maybe I’m just an elite working to undermine them.
I didn’t mean that that’s how the U.K. is, I meant that’s how an ideal democracy works, sorry if that was unclear. I also am not saying uneducated or informed people shouldn’t be able to vote, rather, ideally voters are both educated and informed on the topic of the vote. I don’t think that’s controversial.You're wrong though. Being educated has nothing to do with democracy. You can invent your own definition all you like, but that's not what democracy is. Everyone eligible gets to vote, regardless of how educated or informed they may be. Your version is not how a democratic vote works in the United Kingdom.
Also it's definitely unreasonable to think that a new vote should be held unless you want to scrap the entire system. The terms of leaving were known variables. The question was a simple yes or no. As flawed as you may think that to be, there's no debate to be had that a new vote should be held, before implementing the outcome of the first vote, under any integrity of the current system.
When the "leave" side was claiming things like "leave means we get all of the benefits of the EU but with none of the problems, plus extra money for our NHS" when it turned out that was complete bullshit, then yes, we should get another voteAlso it's definitely unreasonable to think that a new vote should be held unless you want to scrap the entire system. The terms of leaving were known variables. The question was a simple yes or no. As flawed as you may think that to be, there's no debate to be had that a new vote should be held, before implementing the outcome of the first vote, under any integrity of the current system.
It's the best bad solution we have.so strange how democracy is always situated as an inherent good without flaw
Debatably not the same thing. Most republics are indeed designed with gridlock as an intentional feature, so nothing gets done unless it's screamingly obviously the right thing to do. Of course, lately they've been getting around this by delegating more and more legislative power to the executive (totally illegal, btw, but nobody stops them), but that's a mistake which should be discussed in its own thread.It's the best bad solution we have.
A "benevolent" dictatorship can turn tyrannical in only one generation. European democracies are designed to effetely flop around for a long long time before it comes to that.
with this in mind, it's also worth repeating that the brexit vote in 2016 was the second vote for "do you want to stay in the EU or not", so if your argument is "we should never have a vote for the same thing twice" then you're also saying "the 2016 brexit vote didn't count". Peoples' opinions change over time lolExcept representative democracies repeatedly hold votes on the same things repeatedly as a definition. It’s not like you hold an election and say, “x party won, they get to be in charge forever!” Even referendum votes in democracies are sometimes repeated, (recreational marijuana in California failed a ballot initiative in 1976, but passed in 2016). A fundamental part of democracy is continually reassessing previous votes, the electorate changes over time and in a democracy the government changes with it. If, hypothetically, brexit had already happened, but a government that wanted to hold a referendum on rejoining the EU was elected by the the U.K. electorate, would it be undemocratic to hold an referendum on it? Would it be undemocratic if it were held 20 years after leaving? If no, why does it matter whether or not they leave before the vote is held? If yes, then why is the electorate on June 23rd 2016 making the decision for the electorate in 2036 acceptable but the electorate of 2019 making a decision for themselves not?
You're almost there. Implement the Brexit and restore the British monarchy to its former glory.so strange how democracy is always situated as an inherent good without flaw
lolYou're almost there. Implement the Brexit and restore the British monarchy to its former glory.
On Ecuador, the State Department has been more forthcoming, issuing a full endorsement of Moreno's neoliberal austerity package:One factor keeping Moïse in power is support from the United States. US officials have been limited in their public comments about the protests.
In other words, don't expect any angry editorials denouncing US client states like Haiti or Ecuador, or arguing that the Chilean government's repression of its protest movement shows the moral bankruptcy of capitalism. Indeed, corporate media (e.g., Guardian, 10/8/19; CNN, 10/8/19; USA Today, 10/10/19) emphasized the violence of the Ecuadorian protestors while downplaying Hong Kong's—the New York Times (6/30/19) even inventing the phrase "aggressive nonviolence" to describe the Hong Kong protesters' actions, so eager was it to frame the demonstrations against China as unquestionably laudable"The United States supports President Moreno and the Government of Ecuador's efforts to institutionalize democratic practices and implement needed economic reforms…. We will continue to work in partnership with President Moreno in support of democracy, prosperity, and security.