Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[FiF]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The only certain thing is we wont be saving £8bn pa when we leave.

That was a point that I and others made quite a few times.

But as mentioned there are issues other than purely monetary ones.

[AC43]

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

The trouble is, of course, who takes over that.

The snake in the grass Johnson of course is biding his time knowing that May's leadership will blow up under the strain. Them there are his even more swivel-eyed colleagues none of whom I'd ever want to see running the country.

And then of course you'll have the other wing of the party far more aligned with Flexit that the hard core stuff fighting their corner.

This topic has divided the nation it's surely going to be civil war for the Tories. Just a Labour split themselves into Trotskyites vs traitors.....

The place is going nuts.

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Greg66 said:

andymadmak said:

I suppose the reality is that each of us speaks for ourselves plus the comparatively few people we know well enough to be able to represent accurately.

I agree with that.

andymadmak said:

The Remain argument that "we don't know what Brexit means, and thus some people who voted for Brexit may well get something that they did not want or vote for once the negotiations are completed, or indeed that the consequences of their vote may have become so clear by that time as to make them want to change their minds" appears logical until you replace the word Brexit with Remain and see that the logic remains the same (and just as valid/not valid)

It is, and remains, logical and valid whether or not you replace the word "Brexit" with "Remain".

Should circumstances have changed materially following a "Remain" vote, the option to have another referendum would always be there. That seems to be where the two alternative lines of thinking part company.

I'm far from convinced that had we remained in the EU the UK would have ever had the opportunity to have another referendum on leaving the EU, ever.

After all *Cameron* stated in the weeks prior to the referendum it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote either 'in' or 'out', and regardless of the result there wouldn't be another chance.

Based on reports I've read the EU will stamp out referendums in the long term, and voting to remain would have given the EU impetus to drive through many of there other 'beneficial' changes to being a member, the 'group hug' being one of them.

Obviously you're entitled to those views, but they strike me as having the character of a doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting-skewed perspective - albeit from a different starting point - that Remainers are often said to have.

don'tbesilly said:

Trusting the EU would be like trusting *Cameron*

The EU would stitch up the UK at the first opportunity

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Greg66 said:

Obviously you're entitled to those views, but they strike me as having the character of a doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting-skewed perspective - albeit from a different starting point - that Remainers are often said to have.

So you didn't believe Cameron when he said the referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' opportunity to vote either 'in' or 'out'.
Have you got a source/link that gave the opposite opinion - that the UK could have a second referendum on staying in the EU, if the referendum the UK had on the 23rd June resulted in a remain vote.

In terms of the EU's (or members of) stance on referendums:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/top-eurocrat-tim...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-referendu...

Greg66 said:

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Obviously you're entitled to that opinion, but they strike me as being the same doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting statements repeated throughout the thread to date.

PS: I CBA to requote what you edited out from my original post, so the above won't necessarily flow correctly.
You probably chose to ignore the blatant denial by the EU of the UK's veto on their proposals for an EU armed force, as it was something that would not sit nicely with your bias, or perhaps you thought it not true?

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

Have you got a source/link that gave the opposite opinion - that the UK could have a second referendum on staying in the EU, if the referendum the UK had on the 23rd June resulted in a remain vote.

I would have thought to any rational person that falls into the "utterly fking obvious" category. Wasn't it something that His Serene Nigelness (may peace be upon Him) said he would press hard for in the event of a marginal (eg 52/48) vote to stay?

don'tbesilly said:

In terms of the EU's (or members of) stance on referendums:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/top-eurocrat-tim...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-referendu...

None of those links begin to get close to a statement of EU policy. Much less a policy of a member state. And I don't accept that the EU would get any traction for such a proposal.

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trusting the EU would be like trusting *Cameron*

The EU would stitch up the UK at the first opportunity

Greg66 said:

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Obviously you're entitled to that opinion, but they strike me as being the same doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting statements repeated throughout the thread to date.

PS: I CBA to requote what you edited out from my original post, so the above won't necessarily flow correctly.
You probably chose to ignore the blatant denial by the EU of the UK's veto on their proposals for an EU armed force, as it was something that would not sit nicely with your bias, or perhaps you thought it not true?

I can be arsed to requote your statements about how much the EU would try to do us over at every opportunity as the context for my comment.

As for the UK's veto on an EU Armed force - whilst we were committed members of the EU I am pretty certain our veto would have stopped the project stone dead in its tracks. Now that we've said we are going, it surprises me not one jot to hear the EU telling us that our veto is worthless.

We can, of course, oppose the formation of an EU Armed Force from outside the EU as a threat to the integrity of NATO. But it seems pretty obvious to me that our ability to affect what the EU do from the outside is severely compromised compared to our ability to affect things from the inside. So, surprise surprise, the departure from the EU of a country which was a major opponent of an EU Armed Force may have paved the way for the formation of an EU Armed Force.

This really isn't rocket science.

[craigjm]

Stickyfinger said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The only certain thing is we wont be saving £8bn pa when we leave.

but we will be saving our democracy

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

[Stickyfinger]

NATO countries of any worth

USA, UK, France, Canada

the rest, just pointless

[Stickyfinger]

craigjm said:

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

You vote for MP's not PM's

the rest is drivel

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Have you got a source/link that gave the opposite opinion - that the UK could have a second referendum on staying in the EU, if the referendum the UK had on the 23rd June resulted in a remain vote.

I would have thought to any rational person that falls into the "utterly fking obvious" category. Wasn't it something that His Serene Nigelness (may peace be upon Him) said he would press hard for in the event of a marginal (eg 52/48) vote to stay?

don'tbesilly said:

In terms of the EU's (or members of) stance on referendums:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/top-eurocrat-tim...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-referendu...

None of those links begin to get close to a statement of EU policy. Much less a policy of a member state. And I don't accept that the EU would get any traction for such a proposal.

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trusting the EU would be like trusting *Cameron*

The EU would stitch up the UK at the first opportunity

Greg66 said:

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Obviously you're entitled to that opinion, but they strike me as being the same doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting statements repeated throughout the thread to date.

PS: I CBA to requote what you edited out from my original post, so the above won't necessarily flow correctly.
You probably chose to ignore the blatant denial by the EU of the UK's veto on their proposals for an EU armed force, as it was something that would not sit nicely with your bias, or perhaps you thought it not true?

I can be arsed to requote your statements about how much the EU would try to do us over at every opportunity as the context for my comment.

As for the UK's veto on an EU Armed force - whilst we were committed members of the EU I am pretty certain our veto would have stopped the project stone dead in its tracks. Now that we've said we are going, it surprises me not one jot to hear the EU telling us that our veto is worthless.

We can, of course, oppose the formation of an EU Armed Force from outside the EU as a threat to the integrity of NATO. But it seems pretty obvious to me that our ability to affect what the EU do from the outside is severely compromised compared to our ability to affect things from the inside. So, surprise surprise, the departure from the EU of a country which was a major opponent of an EU Armed Force may have paved the way for the formation of an EU Armed Force.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/smilies.htm
This really isn't rocket science.

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Fair enough for you I guess, others might not appreciate being walked all over, mind you that was the status quo option you were so in favour of, so not surprising really.

[Funkycoldribena]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Have you got a source/link that gave the opposite opinion - that the UK could have a second referendum on staying in the EU, if the referendum the UK had on the 23rd June resulted in a remain vote.

I would have thought to any rational person that falls into the "utterly fking obvious" category. Wasn't it something that His Serene Nigelness (may peace be upon Him) said he would press hard for in the event of a marginal (eg 52/48) vote to stay?

don'tbesilly said:

In terms of the EU's (or members of) stance on referendums:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/top-eurocrat-tim...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-referendu...

None of those links begin to get close to a statement of EU policy. Much less a policy of a member state. And I don't accept that the EU would get any traction for such a proposal.

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trusting the EU would be like trusting *Cameron*

The EU would stitch up the UK at the first opportunity

Greg66 said:

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Obviously you're entitled to that opinion, but they strike me as being the same doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting statements repeated throughout the thread to date.

PS: I CBA to requote what you edited out from my original post, so the above won't necessarily flow correctly.
You probably chose to ignore the blatant denial by the EU of the UK's veto on their proposals for an EU armed force, as it was something that would not sit nicely with your bias, or perhaps you thought it not true?

I can be arsed to requote your statements about how much the EU would try to do us over at every opportunity as the context for my comment.

As for the UK's veto on an EU Armed force - whilst we were committed members of the EU I am pretty certain our veto would have stopped the project stone dead in its tracks. Now that we've said we are going, it surprises me not one jot to hear the EU telling us that our veto is worthless.

We can, of course, oppose the formation of an EU Armed Force from outside the EU as a threat to the integrity of NATO. But it seems pretty obvious to me that our ability to affect what the EU do from the outside is severely compromised compared to our ability to affect things from the inside. So, surprise surprise, the departure from the EU of a country which was a major opponent of an EU Armed Force may have paved the way for the formation of an EU Armed Force.

This really isn't rocket science.

What a load of absolute garbage.
And if it had gone the other way and Farage was calling for a second referendum you'd be screaming the place down.

[dandarez]

Funkycoldribena said:

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Have you got a source/link that gave the opposite opinion - that the UK could have a second referendum on staying in the EU, if the referendum the UK had on the 23rd June resulted in a remain vote.

I would have thought to any rational person that falls into the "utterly fking obvious" category. Wasn't it something that His Serene Nigelness (may peace be upon Him) said he would press hard for in the event of a marginal (eg 52/48) vote to stay?

don'tbesilly said:

In terms of the EU's (or members of) stance on referendums:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/12/top-eurocrat-tim...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-referendu...

None of those links begin to get close to a statement of EU policy. Much less a policy of a member state. And I don't accept that the EU would get any traction for such a proposal.

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trusting the EU would be like trusting *Cameron*

The EU would stitch up the UK at the first opportunity

Greg66 said:

Our negotiations with them once A50 has been triggered are sure to go well then. They'll give us a great deal, sure as.

Obviously you're entitled to that opinion, but they strike me as being the same doomsaying/Project Fear/bedwetting statements repeated throughout the thread to date.

PS: I CBA to requote what you edited out from my original post, so the above won't necessarily flow correctly.
You probably chose to ignore the blatant denial by the EU of the UK's veto on their proposals for an EU armed force, as it was something that would not sit nicely with your bias, or perhaps you thought it not true?

I can be arsed to requote your statements about how much the EU would try to do us over at every opportunity as the context for my comment.

As for the UK's veto on an EU Armed force - whilst we were committed members of the EU I am pretty certain our veto would have stopped the project stone dead in its tracks. Now that we've said we are going, it surprises me not one jot to hear the EU telling us that our veto is worthless.

We can, of course, oppose the formation of an EU Armed Force from outside the EU as a threat to the integrity of NATO. But it seems pretty obvious to me that our ability to affect what the EU do from the outside is severely compromised compared to our ability to affect things from the inside. So, surprise surprise, the departure from the EU of a country which was a major opponent of an EU Armed Force may have paved the way for the formation of an EU Armed Force.

This really isn't rocket science.

What a load of absolute garbage.
And if it had gone the other way and Farage was calling for a second referendum you'd be screaming the place down.

True.
Poor ol' Greggs. Talking out of his 'bake side' again.

[craigjm]

Stickyfinger said:

craigjm said:

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

You vote for MP's not PM's

the rest is drivel

Just like you vote for an MEP and not the commission. My point is that parliamentary, first past the post, democracy is flawed every way that you look at it. Once we are out of the EU thats not going to be any better. Yes, we will have MORE of a say over what happens but it wont be dramatic.

[Derek Smith]

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

The trouble is, of course, who takes over that.

The snake in the grass Johnson of course is biding his time knowing that May's leadership will blow up under the strain. Them there are his even more swivel-eyed colleagues none of whom I'd ever want to see running the country.

And then of course you'll have the other wing of the party far more aligned with Flexit that the hard core stuff fighting their corner.

This topic has divided the nation it's surely going to be civil war for the Tories. Just a Labour split themselves into Trotskyites vs traitors.....

The place is going nuts.

Are you trying to ruin my enjoyment.

You are right, of course. Her replacement will be one of the 'swivel-eyed'.

We are in turbulent times. Old political certainties are dissolving. The worst thing for the tories has always been a lack of opposition. They turned on Major when they thought the labour movement posed no threat and look how well that turned out. Labour are suffering the same problems as those times and there's no Smith to drag them into something more sensible.

The lib/dems are keeping quiet. They have a powerful infrastructure that has enabled them to work their way back from the brink before. The bitterness over the self-inflicted wound of university fees might wear off a bit, but the new generation of youngsters looking for something to change the system might well look at their debt and blame the lib/dems rather than the tories.

I have no idea what changes will come, only that they must.

They'll write theses about the 2010s in years to come and, ironically, youngsters will study the period in history lessons.

[Stickyfinger]

craigjm said:

Stickyfinger said:

craigjm said:

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

You vote for MP's not PM's

the rest is drivel

Just like you vote for an MEP and not the commission. My point is that parliamentary, first past the post, democracy is flawed every way that you look at it. Once we are out of the EU thats not going to be any better. Yes, we will have MORE of a say over what happens but it wont be dramatic.

If you think the EU structure is the same as UK parliamentary democracy you Sir are living in a different universe than me.

[AC43]

Derek Smith said:

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

The trouble is, of course, who takes over that.

The snake in the grass Johnson of course is biding his time knowing that May's leadership will blow up under the strain. Them there are his even more swivel-eyed colleagues none of whom I'd ever want to see running the country.

And then of course you'll have the other wing of the party far more aligned with Flexit that the hard core stuff fighting their corner.

This topic has divided the nation it's surely going to be civil war for the Tories. Just a Labour split themselves into Trotskyites vs traitors.....

The place is going nuts.

Are you trying to ruin my enjoyment.

You are right, of course. Her replacement will be one of the 'swivel-eyed'.

We are in turbulent times. Old political certainties are dissolving. The worst thing for the tories has always been a lack of opposition. They turned on Major when they thought the labour movement posed no threat and look how well that turned out. Labour are suffering the same problems as those times and there's no Smith to drag them into something more sensible.

The lib/dems are keeping quiet. They have a powerful infrastructure that has enabled them to work their way back from the brink before. The bitterness over the self-inflicted wound of university fees might wear off a bit, but the new generation of youngsters looking for something to change the system might well look at their debt and blame the lib/dems rather than the tories.

I have no idea what changes will come, only that they must.

They'll write theses about the 2010s in years to come and, ironically, youngsters will study the period in history lessons.

Interesting analysis and good point about the Lib Dems. If the Tories rush to the right to fight off UKIP and Labour rush to the left because otherwise you get executed or something it does open a chasm in the middle which is where Smith so successfully prepared the ground for the Labour bus and where Cameron happily parked afterwards.

Yes it's going to be very interesting. And terrifying at times.

[Derek Smith]

craigjm said:

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

Indeed. There are many forms of democracy. There's the Swiss one which, ironically, is a federation of 26(?) independent states and a federal parliament. (It's a bit more technical than that I am sure, but good enough overview.) Rather like the EU in fact. It is very democratic with referenda being part of the governing system, and unlike ours are binding on the government. They have a stable government with more or less a guaranteed coalition style.

We have a form of government with, mostly, one party rule. Despite voting for an MP, you are obviously primarily voting for a party.

If you look at our history, we were not a democracy before 1918, and some, including me, would argue not before 1928, so ours is less than 100 years old.

There can be no doubt that most vote for a party in the UK. With the FPTP system it has meant that a minority rules, except, of course, following the 2010 elections when for the first time we got over 50% for the government. It is an unfair system in many ways and has led to some problems over the years. But it is the one we are stuck with.

I live in a area which would return a fat pig if it had a blue rosette. He generates lots of complaints, including from those who voted him in. As the DM sells as much as all the other papers combined, my vote is pointless. Very undemocratic and my views are not represented. Not that the incumbent represents anything that I can see.

So not much of a democracy compared to others, as you point out, but the best we've had in the UK.

Let's hope for some improvements. The Swiss methods would produce more representatives for those who voted for a party other than the one the majority voted for. If we had such a system, we'd have more parties and the extremist views of whoever got in would be nullified to an extent.

[craigjm]

Stickyfinger said:

craigjm said:

Stickyfinger said:

craigjm said:

How different will it be though? I never voted for Theresa May or her ideas yet she can be prime minister until 2020 because the Conservative Party said so. I never voted for a swath of Scottish MPs but they will now have a say over what happens to me with their seats in parliament. I never voted for the Labour Party but If I did then I might not have voted for red flag dumb and dumber. I don't get a referendum say on important stuff. If it left to my MP to "speak and vote" on my behalf. I wonder how many of those vote decisions I would agree with over a parliament. I did not vote for the Chinese to build a nuclear plant on our shores.

So UK democracy really means that every few years I get to vote for someone who might champion my interests or might just be a sheep and tow the party line. I don't get to vote for the prime minister or their cabinet and I don't get to vote for the Lords. UK democracy sounds about as democratic as the EU to me.

You vote for MP's not PM's

the rest is drivel

Just like you vote for an MEP and not the commission. My point is that parliamentary, first past the post, democracy is flawed every way that you look at it. Once we are out of the EU thats not going to be any better. Yes, we will have MORE of a say over what happens but it wont be dramatic.

If you think the EU structure is the same as UK parliamentary democracy you Sir are living in a different universe than me.

I dont and I repeat yet again, I am not a remainer but I am also less inclined to believe that being out will really make any noticable difference to the average person in the UK. I wait to be amazed.

[don4l]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The only certain thing is we wont be saving £8bn pa when we leave.

You are, as always, absolutely correct.

We will be saving at least £10Bn a year.

Why on Earth do you think that we should subsidise French farmers?

[Fastdruid]

Derek Smith said:

If you look at our history, we were not a democracy before 1918, and some, including me, would argue not before 1928, so ours is less than 100 years old.

Although of course others would argue with equal merit that we've been a democracy for over 300 years.

[Stickyfinger]

craigjm said:

I dont and I repeat yet again, I am not a remainer but I am also less inclined to believe that being out will really make any noticable difference to the average person in the UK. I wait to be amazed.

The EU is a Soviet style Bureaucratic Dictatorship.....it is designed to remove national democracy in favour of the bureaucracy that can veto all the decisions of the people it governs. It is designed to transfer the real power to said bureaucracy, it is designed to eliminate political power from the peoples by its structure, it works very well.

Me thinks you should swot up on Trotsky and the structure of the Soviet states, history repeats its self, only the names change.

[don'tbesilly]

Fastdruid said:

Derek Smith said:

If you look at our history, we were not a democracy before 1918, and some, including me, would argue not before 1928, so ours is less than 100 years old.

Although of course others would argue with equal merit that we've been a democracy for over 300 years.

The UK ceased to be a democracy when the UK went through a democratic process to decide the future of the UK within the European Union.

Had we voted to remain of course, everyone now claiming the above or variations that question the democratic process would be claiming what those that voted leave claim.

Simplistically it's called sour grapes,the remain voters dress it up in many other ways though.

Some historians maintain that democracy in Britain can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215, but some like to rewrite history.