Brexit is becoming an Anti-Democracy Exercise for the ELITES in Britain

[Shockm]

While Brexit isn't a direct issue to America, and many Americans have ignored or at least not kept themselves abreast of the issue of it's closest Democratic Ally across the Atlantic, I would argue that indirectly, it does affect us. For a legislature to ignore the majority vote of it's people shows because the RULING ELITES have questions about the issue is a problem for all democracies in the world. If the ELITE RULING class can ERASE an election in Britain, it can happen here also. Britain and other European democracies have already made laws limiting Free Speech in their countries and this is a concern.

In America, we already have entities of ruling elites, and others who are advocating for the limitations of our FIRST AMENDMENT (Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion). They brand Trump as a Tyrant when he hasn't advocated for any of the limitations of the First Amendment.

I would hope that American citizens haven't fallen asleep so much to not be educated in these issues because any of us could have these RIGHTS limited if we allow it.

[WheatShock]

This probably belongs in the politics forum.

I have been watching , but haven't followed Brexit in great detail. You could say there are parallels to the way the left and other swamp rats have treated Trump's election.

[SB Shock]

There are several lessons to be learned, beside the one you pointed out.

1. This is why you don't govern by referendum.

Important decisions have to have super majorities, otherwise you are going to hurt your own democracy. That is why our system has a veto and requires 2/3 majority to override it. The elites knew this was going to be a 50/50 issue for the UK, but they all thought the "remain" would win by a small %. They were surprised in the end the vote ended up being 51.9% to 48.1% to leave. Now if they don't leave, that 52% will be angry. Who knows, they might achieve 99% angry.


2. Make sure you participate in the election process. Why let the minority decide issues for you?

Leave - 17.4 million
Remain - 16.4 million
Didn't Vote (registered) - 12.9 million
Didn't register to vote - 18.9 million


I have followed their polling numbers since the 2016 referendum, the "Stay" might win in a second referendum, but it will be a similar 50/50% type vote, dependent on turnout and registration. But regardless of the outcome, a large chunk of your country is going to be unhappy.

[Shockm]

There are several lessons to be learned, beside the one you pointed out.

1. This is why you don't govern by referendum.

I don't disagree with this at all but if you hold a vote, the assumption is that government is going to go by the vote. Another undemocratic vote that took place in the U.S. is when the State of California voted by a significant margin that marriage in Cal should one man and one woman was NULLIFIED by the courts that said that it wasn't constitutional. The 9th Circuit shouldn't be nullifying any elections by majorities. While the majority probably wasn't 66%, it was quite a bit above 50%

[jdshock]

I don't disagree with this at all but if you hold a vote, the assumption is that government is going to go by the vote. Another undemocratic vote that took place in the U.S. is when the State of California voted by a significant margin that marriage in Cal should one man and one woman was NULLIFIED by the courts that said that it wasn't constitutional. The 9th Circuit shouldn't be nullifying any elections by majorities. While the majority probably wasn't 66%, it was quite a bit above 50%

If 67% of Kansas voted in favor of a law that said "you're not allowed to post online anything negative about the state legislature." You'd almost certainly support the right of the courts to overturn that law. At least, I'd hope you would. Am I correct in my assumption? Or do you actually believe that courts shouldn't be "nullifying any elections by majorities?"

I would wager that your issue is that you don't agree with the 9th Circuit that the California law was unconstitutional. It has absolutely nothing to do with your thoughts on the role of courts in a democracy.

[SB Shock]

I don't disagree with this at all but if you hold a vote, the assumption is that government is going to go by the vote.

It is a little more complex than that. Remember this is the United Kingdom - made up of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Scotland voted 62% to stay. They could conceivable choose to walk away from the UK. Imagine the chaos.

[Shockm]

It isn’t that difficult. If you aren’t going to go with the majority in a democracy, don’t have a vote. That’s pretty basic.

[wufan]

It isn’t that difficult. If you aren’t going to go with the majority in a democracy, don’t have a vote. That’s pretty basic.

Totally agree. They shouldn’t have had a referendum if they weren’t going to act on it.

[Shockm]

If 67% of Kansas voted in favor of a law that said "you're not allowed to post online anything negative about the state legislature." You'd almost certainly support the right of the courts to overturn that law. At least, I'd hope you would. Am I correct in my assumption? Or do you actually believe that courts shouldn't be "nullifying any elections by majorities?"

I would wager that your issue is that you don't agree with the 9th Circuit that the California law was unconstitutional. It has absolutely nothing to do with your thoughts on the role of courts in a democracy.

I’ll say it one more time. If one wants for 9 liberal guys in a robe to make the laws, which they did in this case (with their interpretation of the Constitution) don’t hold a democratic majority referendum of millions of people.

[jdshock]

I’ll say it one more time. If one wants for 9 liberal guys in a robe to make the laws, which they did in this case (with their interpretation of the Constitution) don’t hold a democratic majority referendum of millions of people.

Well, I stand corrected.

To be clear, that's an absolutely terrible stance if you truly believe in the constitution. The majority of a single state should not be able to overrule the rights set forth in the constitution. That is fundamental. That is how our country operates. If 67% of California voted to ensure that the GOP was kept off of future senate ballots in the state, I'd sure hope that "9 liberal guys in a robe" would undo that law passed by a "democratic majority referendum."

[SB Shock]

It isn’t that difficult. If you aren’t going to go with the majority in a democracy, don’t have a vote. That’s pretty basic.

David Cameron was planning on going with the majority, until he lost and found out his position was in the minority. It was a huge Blunder by Cameron.


Brexit is difficult proposition. The politicians know it, and for a lot of them the referendum was not their doing so they are not going to abide by it - they are going to support the position that is best for their constituents.

If they go with a negotiated Brexit, they are still going to be dictated to by the E.U., live under the same laws/rules/taxes except they won't have any representation in the E.U. and will lose some privileges.

If they go hard Brexit, there will be a significant disruption in the U.K. economy. It took 7 years for Canada to negotiate their trade agreement with the EU (and they EU will want to make the UK feel the pain).

Here is one vision for what Brexit could possibly mean.

https://www.thebalance.com/brexit-consequences-4062999

[ShockTalk]

Well, I stand corrected.

To be clear, that's an absolutely terrible stance if you truly believe in the constitution. The majority of a single state should not be able to overrule the rights set forth in the constitution. That is fundamental. That is how our country operates. If 67% of California voted to ensure that the GOP was kept off of future senate ballots in the state, I'd sure hope that "9 liberal guys in a robe" would undo that law passed by a "democratic majority referendum."

Nah. Let them keep the GOP off the ballot, but let them know that as long as they do, none of their votes will count.

[Kung Wu]

If 67% of California voted to ensure that the GOP was kept off of future senate ballots in the state, I'd sure hope that "9 liberal guys in a robe" would undo that law passed by a "democratic majority referendum."

Or, for example, if they vote in allowing outsiders to pay college players.

[Shockm]

David Cameron was planning on going with the majority, until he lost and found out his position was in the minority. It was a huge Blunder by Cameron.


Brexit is difficult proposition. The politicians know it, and for a lot of them the referendum was not their doing so they are not going to abide by it - they are going to support the position that is best for their constituents.

If they go with a negotiated Brexit, they are still going to be dictated to by the E.U., live under the same laws/rules/taxes except they won't have any representation in the E.U. and will lose some privileges.

If they go hard Brexit, there will be a significant disruption in the U.K. economy. It took 7 years for Canada to negotiate their trade agreement with the EU (and they EU will want to make the UK feel the pain).

Here is one vision for what Brexit could possibly mean.

https://www.thebalance.com/brexit-consequences-4062999

My only point is that when a vote of the majority are ignored and nullified by Elites, in a Democracy, the DEMOCRACY is damaged. That absolutely cannot be argued against. It totally creates a distrust of ALL democratic principles. Everything else is a sideline if one cares about self rule and self determination. This will also be the result if impeachment in the US happens w/o the large majority of the people believing in it.

[jdshock]

My only point is that when a vote of the majority are ignored and nullified by Elites, in a Democracy, the DEMOCRACY is damaged. That absolutely cannot be argued against. It totally creates a distrust of ALL democratic principles. Everything else is a sideline if one cares about self rule and self determination. This will also be the result if impeachment in the US happens w/o the large majority of the people believing in it.

We are not a democracy, though. We are a constitutional republic.

If we were a democracy, yeah, of course it would go against the framework of our government to overturn democratically passed referendums. In the US, we have a constitution which cannot be amended through a simple majority vote of US citizens. That's just not how it works. So of course the majority can get overturned if the majority is asking for something that is unconstitutional. The constitution is not meant to protect the majority. Constitutional rights are important in order to protect the minority. We wouldn't need free speech rights if we only cared about what 51% of people agreed on.

I'm not going to apply it to Brexit because I don't (care to?) know enough about their framework and history. But in the United States, we have a specific framework for amending the constitution, and it is explicitly not a democratic procedure. What you are saying would absolutely justify 51% of the population stripping all rights of the 49%. That is not how our government is supposed to operate.