[syhprum (OP)]

The mantra that the "will of the people demands it" seems to be leading us into a disastrous attempt to leave the EU.
It is often quoted that democracy was the glorious system of government practiced in ancient Greece but it is not mentioned that slaves and women were excluded.
No decisions should be left to the uninformed masses who do not appreciate all the consequences and are easily manipulated by vested interests.

[Bored chemist]

Brexit isn't the will of the people- it's the will of those who put a lot of time (and an illegal amount of money) into dishonestly promoting it.
The problem is you can only have a sensible democracy if you have good education.

No decisions should be left to the uninformed masses

The solution is to inform the masses, rather than disenfranchise them.

[guest45734]

No decisions should be left to the uninformed masses who do not appreciate all the consequences and are easily manipulated by vested interests.

The minority of politicians and media who promoted Brexit, won the vote. I wonder what vested interests they were promoting. Did they believe Brexit would be a good thing or were they just sending the government a message.

Would more people have voted against Brexit if discredited politicians like Tony Blair hadn't being promoting staying in.

Democracy allows peasants to sack / leaders that do not have there interests in mind. Invading foreign countries and stuff like that  is generally not in the interests of the people, unless natural resources like oil can be seized or controlled.

Europe was originally a trading block, it appears now that it is taking more and more power from individual governemts and making laws. It has lost its direction. The UK leaving europe will not effect Europes influence globally but might affect the UK's either plus or minus. It seems that Mrs May is not going to allow another referendum as she does not trust the electorate to make the right decision in her views. After the next election which ever government gets into power are going to blame the woes of brexit on Mrs May.

[Bored chemist]

It seems that Mrs May is not going to allow another referendum as she does not trust the electorate to make the right decision in her views.

Which of her views?

[Petrochemicals]

Nope, one and only one reason for brexit, immigration and the pressure on society. Its just coincidence that the vote that a minority had been campaigning for for a good 20 years plus came along at a time that migration caused high house prices, low training opportunities, pressure on services etc, and the economy was knackered. If they had given the vote 10 years prior, i doubt that the euroskeptic polititians would have had there way. Migrant areas of the 60s migrants voted to leave for this very reason.

As for democracy, its a get out of jail free card, the slogan "if you dont vote you dont have a voice" is about as credible as believing that the majority of people voted for the invasion of iraq, or student fees.

The polititical establishment does what it thinks is best regards the country, and the people who vote vote for what they want rather than what is possible. I am in favour of a chinese style government that the people can vote for what they want and the government actually listen to the people and see what can be done !

[Bored chemist]

Nope, one and only one reason for brexit, immigration and the pressure on society.

A lot of people who voted for Brexit in 2016 suddenly discovered afterwards that neither India  nor Africa were part of the EU.
That, in turn, meant that Brexit wouldn't actually affect the immigration that bothered them. The black + brown people they didn't like could still come here.

I am in favour of a chinese style government that the people can vote for what they want and the government actually listen to the people

I'm calling Poe's law on that one.

[guest45734]

Which of her views?

I don't realy follow the news in the UK as I don't live there, but having about 900 channels of complete shite on my TV, and speaking English I noted Mrs May rules out any chance of a 2nd vote. Perhaps the first vote shouldne have been allowed if it wasn't what the government wanted. One of dozens of links to may https://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=823685

[Bored chemist]

I noted Mrs May rules out any chance of a 2nd vote

Mrs May also ruled out a snap general election- shortly before calling a snap general election.
She's quite good at that sort of thing.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/here-are-10-tory-u-turns-since-the-election-was-called

[guest45734]

I noted Mrs May rules out any chance of a 2nd vote

Mrs May also ruled out a snap general election- shortly before calling a snap general election.
She's quite good at that sort of thing.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/here-are-10-tory-u-turns-since-the-election-was-called

Trying to use the voting system to shut up the opposition MAY back fire (ha ha). Things may have backfired on the tories calling an referendum on Brexit to shut up the Brexit mob. Cameron resigned because of his stupidity, he might have been better to have called an election to see if the electorate still wanted the tories in power. They still dont appear to be able to agree on anything, except perhaps waiting until after Btexit for a general election. Then the party in power will no doubt blame the previous government, or perhaps in the cas eof the OP the electorate for being so stupid in voting for Brexit.

[Bored chemist]

The minority of politicians and media who promoted Brexit, won the vote.

I think you will find it was a minority of politicians, but a majority of the media.
It also helped that the "leave" party disregarded the law on how much you care allowed to spend on political advertising.


If the hare hadn't been so complacent, the tortoise would have lost.

Europe was originally a trading block, it appears now that it is taking more and more power from individual governemts and making laws.

Those governments can still influence or veto those laws and, if they think a law is really bad, they can invoke article 50 and leave.

No country has ever felt that any EU law was that bad. The EU isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the Brexiteers would have us believe.

[guest45734]

Those governments can still influence or veto those laws and, if they think a law is really bad, they can invoke article 50 and leave.No country has ever felt that any EU law was that bad. The EU isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the Brexiteers would have us believe.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not pro Brexit. I do not live in the UK, but the pound has devalued significantly since the Brexit and has cost me a lot of money.

The OP seems to be airing the view that democracy isn't a good thing and we should let the experts decide what is best. In Europe these are generally faceless bureaucrats that no one has ever heard off. Donald Tusk the ex president of Poland has the presidency of the EU and is in charge of the EU, and the UK's Brexit negotiations. A link to Donald Tusk, not Donald Trump, or Donald duck https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/role/

The triggering of article 50 was done by Mrs May, she could decide on another vote, but seems hell bent on her course of action. The Brexit negotiations are most likely going to be cost everyone, it appears to be a no win situation, to me. Except for the politicians who might get more power. 

A little revolution every once in a while can be a good thing. It can also be a disaster.

[Bored chemist]

In Europe these are generally faceless bureaucrats that no one has ever heard off.

It's not their fault you have not heard of them.
I keep hearing people tell me that the EU is undemocratic- because it has unelected commissions.
I don't think people know what that means.

Things are changing in the world. For example, it makes sense for our government to look to the future and consider what provision we need for housing.
That requires a number of things- we need to know about population dynamics- which in turn depend on economics.
It needs people who understand infrastructure design.
It also needs people with an understanding of the supply of building materials.

It's utterly laughable to leave those sorts of questions to our elected politicians who famously al studied politics (and nothing else).
They simply don't  understand the issues.
So, they commision a group who does understand them- people from universities, and hospitals and industry- to actually make the decisions.

Obviously, the commision is "unelected", but that's not a bad thing, they are chosen for their ability- not for their party allegiance.
The European commission is built in much the same way- albeit from politicians- and is chaired  by Juncker.

The European parliament chooses its own head- at the moment they have Tusk.

Your MEP had a say in that decision.

[guest45734]

In Europe these are generally faceless bureaucrats that no one has ever heard off.

It's not their fault you have not heard of them.
I keep hearing people tell me that the EU is undemocratic- because it has unelected commissions.
I don't think people know what that means.

Things are changing in the world. For example, it makes sense for our government to look to the future and consider what provision we need for housing.
That requires a number of things- we need to know about population dynamics- which in turn depend on economics.
It needs people who understand infrastructure design.
It also needs people with an understanding of the supply of building materials.

It's utterly laughable to leave those sorts of questions to our elected politicians who famously al studied politics (and nothing else).
They simply don't  understand the issues.
So, they commision a group who does understand them- people from universities, and hospitals and industry- to actually make the decisions.

Obviously, the commision is "unelected", but that's not a bad thing, they are chosen for their ability- not for their party allegiance.
The European commission is built in much the same way- albeit from politicians- and is chaired  by Juncker.

The European parliament chooses its own head- at the moment they have Tusk.

Your MEP had a say in that decision.

I am becoming disinterested again

This is boring, it has well been established that experts on various decision making authorities have a better chance of understanding what the truth of a situation is. Expert juries are needed in fraud cases for example. In the case of Brexit expert politicians had the opportunity of making decisions. They decided to abdicate the responsibility and put the decision to the electorate who PERHAPS did not vote the way we wanted or in my case expected them to do. You are correct in thinking the Hare would have won the race if it had known the Tortoise was a threat.

The OP is about democracy, and people electing who leads them, or perhaps guides there society through acceptable goal posts . Democracy is not about supporting multinational business concerns, or allowing some tycoon to state how society should be organised, or allowing some benign academic twit decide on the future of millions of people.

I have lost interest.

[David Cooper]

The reason China's going to take over the world is that experts really do know what they're doing, whereas populations don't have a clue. The most urgent need now is to get rid of democracy in order to better compete, which is why Brexit is a backward step. To be competitive, you need to get yourself into a big block which may cost you the ability to control anything, but at least it keeps you afloat. Putin has managed to create a model for maintaining the appearance of democracy while getting rid of it, and the US could easily end up taking the same route if the right can take over enough of the media through fake news. The EU is vulnerable to the same thing, particularly as a permanent lurch to the right is inevitable if they don't put sensible limits on immigration, but what always matters most is maximising GDP (which is our main measure of environmental destruction). That's where Brexit reveals its good side though, because if it repels jobs and population increase, the reduction in the amount of land being lost to concrete will do more to protect the environment than anything else.

[Bored chemist]

The EU is vulnerable to the same thing, particularly as a permanent lurch to the right is inevitable if they don't put sensible limits on immigration,

It does
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF
However the governments of member states don't enforce it because
(1) they prefer to "blame the EU" and
(2) they know that immigrants are usually a benefit to the economy of the host country.

This allows them to have their cake and eat it.
They pander to the racists by blaming the EU, while they actually get the economic benefits of immigrant labour.
A shitty way to behave- but that's what you get from short-termist politicians and a deliberately misinformed electorate.

[jimbobghost]

perhaps this is why the founding fathers of the USA proclaimed our country to be a Republic, rather than a democracy...something sometimes forgotten by the Democrat party.