What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?

[TTwiggy]

Pan Pan Pan said:

This may be the case, but even that was better than the government taking the UK into the EU without giving a single person a vote on whether or not it was what they wanted. And the 2016 referendum was carried out on the basis of vastly more information being available to the UK public, than was ever made available for the UK public on what being in the EEC would mean.

I disagree entirely. I couldn't really care less one way or the other about the EU. I have no emotional engagement with it whatsoever. I voted remain out of pragmatism as I don't believe that this is the right time to bring so much uncertainty on the nation. It's not the most important issue facing this country - not by a long shot. But a combination of an agenda-led media, the personality cult of Nigel Farage and an idiotically weak PM in the form of David Cameron delivered a referendum that most people didn't want or need and many more didn't understand the implications of.

We chose, many many year ago, a representative form of democracy. We elect a government to govern us and it's the government's job to decide things like our EU membership. Otherwise, I want a vote on EVERYTHING

[Wiccan of Darkness]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

But perhaps since you told me to `trot off' you don't really want to gain any further understanding of what democracy means. (beyond your own highly selective version that is) .

Yawn.

I'm very interested in the thread - just not your 'contributions' to it.

Well that means you are just a non democratic f*ckwit who does not have the answer to a salient question aimed at gaining further insight into the meaning of the term democracy.

No, it just means that I think you're quite stupid.

No, As I said before it just means you don't have the answer to a salient question regarding democracy, (and are doing a Dianne Abbott, and just moving on), because you cannot answer the question in a way which suits your highly selective version of what `you' think democracy means. Which rather makes you the ignorant stupid one.

No, it just means that I think you're quite stupid.

If you don't know the answer to the question I put, there is no need to exacerbate your ignorance by trying to avoid it with derogatory comments. Just accept the fact that you are terminally stupid .and to put in the same terms you applied to me, Trot off.

Utterly pathetic. Also, I think you'll find you kicked off the derogatory terms by calling me a fkwit, but I do appreciate you would require at least a quantum of self-awareness to recognise that so you are excused.

Well done though - you've utterly ruined this thread (though I accept a degree of responsibility by rising to it).

Wrong yet again. It was quite definitely you who kicked off the derogatory terms by calling someone who does not agree with your selective view or version of democracy `thick' Still what can one expect from someone as `thick' as you? Bit of advice, next time , don't `rise' to it. it will help your blood pressure , no end.

Why don't you two just book a room at a travelodge and just fk....Gods sake, get it out of your system....

[Disastrous]

Wiccan of Darkness said:

Why don't you two just book a room at a travelodge and just fk....Gods sake, get it out of your system....

Fair one. Apologies to the thread - I'm done.

[Moonhawk]

TTwiggy said:

Where was the part where they asked me if I was happy with the rules? I didn't ask for the referendum and I didn't get a say in its format. I was simply obliged to vote in it.

We got two votes on this referendum.

We got the option to vote against the party promising to deliver a referendum (the country decided to put them in power)

We also got to vote in that referendum (the country decided to leave the EU)

In addition - people unhappy with the rules had the option to question those rules, raise a government petition asking for it to be changed and also campaign for a change. Did you?

Are you actually unhappy with the rules - or just unhappy that you weren't asked about them personally? How would you have run the referendum?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Wrong yet again. It was quite definitely you who kicked off the derogatory terms by calling someone who does not agree with your selective view or version of democracy `thick' Still what can one expect from someone as `thick' as you? Bit of advice, next time , don't `rise' to it. it will help your blood pressure , no end.

Sorry - I thought I was just being factual when I called you thick as you seemed to be struggling to understand the words I had written. I thought I had answered your questions in previous posts which you seemed to not have read/understood. I didn't mean it as an insult

I'm bored now - be my guest and indulge your requirement for the last word.

Ok, for the sake of clarity I will ask the question one more time, this time slightly differently.
Why do you think the decision of the `democratically' elected government of day, to take the UK into the EU without asking the people of the UK if this was what they wanted, was democratic, but the decision of the democratically elected government of the day, to take the UK out of the EU (following a democratically voted for in parliament referendum subsequently confirm in law, in which the majority voted for OUT) was not? A referendum, that I would point out was based on far more information being available to the UK public in 2016, than was ever available to them in 1975 when they were asked to vote on whether or not they wanted to remain in the EEC (the EU was unheard of at that time). So which, (using your version of democracy) do you believe was the most `democratic' and therefore valid vote for the people of the UK?

[TTwiggy]

Moonhawk said:

We got two votes on this referendum.

We got the option to vote against the party promising to deliver a referendum (the country decided to put them in power)

We also got to vote in that referendum (the country decided to leave the EU)

In addition - people unhappy with the rules had the option to question those rules, raise a government petition asking for it to be changed and also campaign for a change. Did you?

Are you actually unhappy with the rules - or just unhappy that you weren't asked about them personally? How would you have run the referendum?

I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.

I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.

[Disastrous]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Ok, for the sake of clarity I will ask the question one more time, this time slightly differently.
Why do you think the decision of the `democratically' elected government of day, to take the UK into the EU without asking the people of the UK if this was what they wanted, was democratic, but the decision of the democratically elected government of the day, to take the UK out of the EU (following a democratically voted for in parliament referendum subsequently confirm in law, in which the majority voted for OUT) was not? A referendum, that I would point out was based on far more information being available to the UK public in 2016, than was ever available to them in 1975 when they were asked to vote on whether or not they wanted to remain in the EEC (the EU was unheard of at that time). So which, (using your version of democracy) do you believe was the most `democratic' and therefore valid vote for the people of the UK?

Honestly, I think you're mixing me up with someone who said those things. I haven't ever commented on how democratic either of those events was - I deliberately limited myself to a hypothetical discussion on whether or not the 'loser' in a democracy should be able to continue campaigning or should accept defeat.

I'm unsure why you think I took a position on the democratic validity of our entry and exit from the EU.

Can we leave it there?


ETA - and I said I was done as well.

[Moonhawk]

TTwiggy said:

I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.

I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.

But the country disagreed with you - and in 2015 voted the party who was promising one into power via a majority government.

Also - who said anything about 'solo' campaigning. Campaigning is about drumming up support from others. Had you raised a petition, garnered enough signatures etc - you could have at least initiated a debate.

Did you even try - or where you happy with the rules of the referendum when the polls in the months leading up to the vote indicated a comfortable remain win? I don't recall any remainers complaining about the rules the referendum was going to use when the polls indicated a remain win and i'd sure they would have happily accepted the result had it gone the way the polls indicated.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 27th July 12:18

[Tom Logan]

TTwiggy said:

Where was the part where they asked me if I was happy with the rules? I didn't ask for the referendum and I didn't get a say in its format. I was simply obliged to vote in it.

No you weren't.

No-one in the UK is obliged to vote in anything.

You really do post some crap sometimes.

[TTwiggy]

Moonhawk said:

TTwiggy said:

I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.

I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.

But the country disagreed with you - and in 2015 voted the party who was promising one into power via a majority government.

Also - who said anything about 'solo' campaigning. Campaigning is about drumming up support from others. Had you raised a petition, garnered enough signatures etc - you could have at least initiated a debate.

Did you even try - or where you happy with the rules of the referendum when the polls in the months leading up to the vote indicated a comfortable remain win? I don't recall any remainers complaining about the rules the referendum was going to use when the polls indicated a remain win.

With respect, I think you being rather disingenuous. For a start, rather less than half the country voted for the Conservatives in 2015. And of those who did vote for them (me included) I'd wager that the EU referendum wasn't a motivating factor one way or the other (it wasn't for me).

I also think that trying to turn this into a 'me problem' for my failure to rise up against the rules of the referendum with an army of followers is rather missing the point.

[TTwiggy]

Tom Logan said:

No you weren't.

No-one in the UK is obliged to vote in anything.

You really do post some crap sometimes.

What's your problem with me Tom? I'm having a discussion here. I'm entitled to do that. Please stop following me around threads that you've made no contribution towards. This is a polite request.

[CaptainSlow]

TTwiggy said:

CaptainSlow said:

TTwiggy said:

Moonhawk said:

Surely those people complaining about not getting the result they wanted are the ones who are behaving contrary to democracy - afterall they were quite happy to participate under the rules laid out when they thought the result was going to go the way they wanted.

Quick point here - nobody ever asked me if I was happy with the rules.

Yes you were. It was on The 2015 Conservative manifesto which you were asked if you wanted or not.

Where was the part where they asked me if I was happy with the rules? I didn't ask for the referendum and I didn't get a say in its format. I was simply obliged to vote in it.

You did ask for one and were happy with the Government to decide on the rules as the Conservatives won the 2015 election. You weren't obliged to vote in it either.

[TTwiggy]

CaptainSlow said:

You did ask for one and were happy with the Government to decide on the rules as the Conservatives won the 2015 election. You weren't obliged to vote in it either.

Not obliged, no. But if I wanted my 'democratic say' (including being unhappy with the result) then I was effectively obliged. Just look at the grief a certain 'remoaner' got on here when he admitted he hadn't voted.

[Pan Pan Pan]

TTwiggy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

This may be the case, but even that was better than the government taking the UK into the EU without giving a single person a vote on whether or not it was what they wanted. And the 2016 referendum was carried out on the basis of vastly more information being available to the UK public, than was ever made available for the UK public on what being in the EEC would mean.

I disagree entirely. I couldn't really care less one way or the other about the EU. I have no emotional engagement with it whatsoever. I voted remain out of pragmatism as I don't believe that this is the right time to bring so much uncertainty on the nation. It's not the most important issue facing this country - not by a long shot. But a combination of an agenda-led media, the personality cult of Nigel Farage and an idiotically weak PM in the form of David Cameron delivered a referendum that most people didn't want or need and many more didn't understand the implications of.

We chose, many many year ago, a representative form of democracy. We elect a government to govern us and it's the government's job to decide things like our EU membership. Otherwise, I want a vote on EVERYTHING

So if in 2016 the government, (and the government alone) had decided to take the UK straight out of the EU straight away, with no challenges in law etc being allowed (in the same way it took the UK into the EU) and without asking the UK public if this was what they wanted, this would be fine with you? and you would accept that decision without question, regardless of how apprehensive you might feel about it? and also that the majority of the UK public would also be happy with that type of action from the government, simply because it was made by the `democratically' elected government, where no referendum on the matter was required?
It would seem from all the people, that were not happy with, or prepared to accept the result of the only democratic vote they have ever been given on the matter, that not many would have been happy for the government, to have taken the UK out of the EU without even asking the citizens of the UK.
No one in 1975 knew what being in the EEC would mean, (much less the EU, as the EU had not even been heard of at that time) and yet they voted to remain in the EEC on the basis of only a tiny fraction of the information than was made available to the public in 2016. This makes the 2016 referendum result far far more valid than the one which kept the UK in the EEC in 1975..

[TTwiggy]

Pan Pan Pan said:

So if in 2016 the government, (and the government alone) had decided to take the UK straight out of the EU straight away, with no challenges in law etc being allowed (in the same way it took the UK into the EU) and without asking the UK public if this was what they wanted, this would be fine with you? and you would accept that decision without question, regardless of how apprehensive you might feel about it?

If it was in their manifesto, then yes. Otherwise, I'd also accept if it wasn't in the manifesto, but unforeseen and rapid developments within the EU, during a government's term, made our continuing membership bad for the country and the government decided we had to leave ASAP.

I'm also wondering why this (interesting) thread has to be another bloody Brexit one though, as there's a much wider subject to talk about.

[amusingduck]

TTwiggy said:

I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.

I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.

The EU referendum was a matter of "when", not "if".

If not in 2016, when?

[Murph7355]

TTwiggy said:

...
I'm also wondering why this (interesting) thread has to be another bloody Brexit one though, as there's a much wider subject to talk about.

On this we agree.

It seems to be the Juncker approach. The answer to all problems is "more EU" (threads).

[Pan Pan Pan]

TTwiggy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

So if in 2016 the government, (and the government alone) had decided to take the UK straight out of the EU straight away, with no challenges in law etc being allowed (in the same way it took the UK into the EU) and without asking the UK public if this was what they wanted, this would be fine with you? and you would accept that decision without question, regardless of how apprehensive you might feel about it?

If it was in their manifesto, then yes. Otherwise, I'd also accept if it wasn't in the manifesto, but unforeseen and rapid developments within the EU, during a government's term, made our continuing membership bad for the country and the government decided we had to leave ASAP.

I'm also wondering why this (interesting) thread has to be another bloody Brexit one though, as there's a much wider subject to talk about.

Me, I am just trying to get an idea of what people think is meant by the term democracy, and the selective `democracy' used in the way in which the UK was taken into, and now out of the EU seemed to be a particularly up to date, and relevant way of exploring this.
Some others did not think so, but that, as some might say could just be democracy, especially as the OP used the Brexit case, as the starting point for his post.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 27th July 12:57

[TTwiggy]

amusingduck said:

TTwiggy said:

I've effectively answered this above. I simply don't believe we needed a referendum. Our membership (or not) of the EU was not the most pressing issue facing this country in 2016. It did not warrant special measures.

I wasn't aware that I could 'solo' campaign for a rule change.

The EU referendum was a matter of "when", not "if".

If not in 2016, when?

Possibly when the country was no longer trying to claw its way back from one of the biggest financial meltdowns in recent history.

[dandarez]

TTwiggy said:

CaptainSlow said:

You did ask for one and were happy with the Government to decide on the rules as the Conservatives won the 2015 election. You weren't obliged to vote in it either.

Not obliged, no. But if I wanted my 'democratic say' (including being unhappy with the result) then I was effectively obliged. Just look at the grief a certain 'remoaner' got on here when he admitted he hadn't voted.

Which he truly deserved!
If you can't be arsed to vote, don't expect not to get some grief if you then continually moan (ditto, ditto) forever that the vote didn't go the way that you wanted.