| The Comments |
https://www.facebook.com/MyBrexit/videos/1857194757897475/
0
Like
|
This talk of one party state is indeed baloney.
It would indeed be impossibke for any Dictator, President, Monarch, PrimecMinister or indeed government to please the entire population, there will always be dissenters.We either have one party democratically voted in power trying to do their best for a majority OR we have endless coalitions likecsomecEuropean countries where parties have to work together, who provides the opposition then?
Are you suggesting NO decisions should ever be taken whilst their is one objector.
These arguments are getting very thin and weak Mickey.
0
Like
|
Jarvis
The only one party state is the EUSSR.
Who or what or where is this EUSSR?
Is it just a figment of your imagination?
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
Tadd1966
No figments in my imagination.
The EUSSR is the EU, a bit like the USSR, remember them? Undemocratic rulers who wouldn't listen to their citizens, remind you of anyone?
0
Like
|
'Real democracy is about respecting the views and opinions of the minority and governing accordingly'
'fraid not. Democracy is enacting the will of the majority.
3
Like
|
Wow. Talk about confused views on democracy.
The current UK government is not listening to 48% of its population regarding Brexit. It also is not listening to the 95% of its citizens that want a unilateral decision taken now to guarantee residency rights of EU citizens living legally in the UK. The will of the people is not necessarily enacted.
We all know how democracy in the UK works so why people try to reinvent it is beyond me. There never has been any legal or moral obligation to do OR not do something based on the will of the people. Opposition to decisions proposed and/or taken by the Government in power by the Loyal opposition are part of the process.
There is no obligation, nor is it disloyal for citizen's to oppose the view of the Government. The people in power are as capable as anyone else of getting it wrong. The citizen's of the U.K. are entitled to change their minds and demand the Government act on their revised views. The Government takes note or ignore. They have always worked that way irrespective of party.
People want Brexit cast in stone. It is not and there is every legal reason in a democracy for it to be reversed if that is what 50.01% of the people call for. There is every legal and moral right to protest and campaign against Brexit despite the referendum outcome. Just accept that reality and you will sleep better.
0
Like
|
Agreed PP well put. Ken Clarke in a Brexit debate spoke about 'the tyranny of the majority" as being an unacceptable way to govern. It has always been the case in western democracies that governments represent ALL the people, not a section with a particular view point and not just the political support base.
Governments ignore the minority at their peril. The have to have consideration for the 48% who want Britain to remain in the EU whilst at the same time deliivering for the majority.
That means having the skills and intelligence to make compromises during the negotiations which will go some way to satisfy both sides.
If they fail the 48% who retain parliamentary representation will increase in number and vote the ruling party out of office.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Just heard on the Andrew Marr show the 48% is now 42% (and probably shrinking day by day)
1
Like
|
Cut the crap Mickey, you know full well NO form of government can ever represent or reflect ALL views and opinions.
Ken Clarke stuck to his long held principles most MPs reflected the views of their constituents and of the majority that bothered to vote.
2
Like
|
PS you are more intelligent than that.
0
Like
|
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
Otto von Bismark.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
pp
Another fictional figure of 95%, where do you get them from.
Again you and everyone else knows full well, the government has specifically said it wants to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens living in U.K. and as with all negotiations just wants an indication from the EU that will do the same withbUK citizens living there.
Another media issue.
NO ONE is going to get thrown out but sadly they may become pawns in the negotiations unless the EU sees some sense and stops saying, you can't leave and carry on doing business in the same way.
once article 50 is triggered, hopefully sensible negotiations will ensue between well informed individuals NOT the media.
3
Like
|
|
Yes, always made up when it does not suit the Brexit Agenda, like the 41% increase in hate crimes is just made up. The 95% is fact, just google it.
0
Like
|
Oh sorry did you mean 95% of EU citizens in U.K. Want some assurances OR 95% of UK citizens want Assurances?
If you'd googled it, you would have posted the link for ease of access.
1
Like
|
Hugh man -And your point Micky?
The purpose of that Bismark quote is to illustrate that politique real means compromise is always necessary. That compromise in a democracy means in effect attempting to obtain the best outcome which will go some way to satisfy both sides of an issue. This despite the referendum marginal result because the remain opinion has equal validity. The numbers majority is simply a method of forming a decision or direction in which to proceed.
Where there are clear opinions in a divide it is the job and skill of government in the final settlement not to alienate one against the other. If that takes place all you do it create another more serious problem later on.
History clearly demonstrates if one side wins at the expense of the other sooner or later conflict will arise.
So in the Brexit debate both sides need to prepare themselves for the fact that not all their demands and expectations can be satisfied.
If the British government doesn’t take that pragmatic path Brexit will become more of a disaster than I expect.
In addition this view I have has nothing to do with the public utterances of politicians either in the media or on the hustings. The details of Brexit will be decided behind closed doors at the 23rd hour in the negotiations and that's when the politique real really begins.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 19/02/2017.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
If you believe that Mickeyfinn and Perrypower, why no response to the posting identifying the recent EU debate and vote to reform and how this will realistically "play out " in the upcoming negotiations in terms of finding mutually beneficial outcomes? Why no intellectual analysis of this recent reform process to clarify if this is realistically achievable, or is it rhetoric, indeed what timeframe are we talking here in terms of a practical workable compromise that you make recent reference to?
There seems to be all too little analysis of real practical workable solutions given the changing face of the European Union and ongoing member state reforms, with far too much emphasis on defending each sides political "ideologies" rather than a willingness to strive for workable and mutually beneficial outcomes.
2
Like
|
When a party wins an election it trys to implement it's manifesto (not always easy), so why would they bother with the opposition's one?
1
Like
|
well this thread is full of thoughts, mine is i think we should economically voted in, but morally i think we should be out. wonder whats next?
This message was last edited by robertt8696 on 19/02/2017.
0
Like
|
|