I know, as anyone else must, who is honest with themselves,
that as a rule nothing is perfect, but, when it comes to deciding the rules we
live by, who in practice governs and how, then unfortunately the best we can
hope for is often the least worse option. J
I can not take credit for originating this thought, or even
claim it is ‘bleeding edge’ thinking. Here I will take the opportunity of
quoting Winston Churchill: “…democracy is
the worst form of government - Except for all the others...”
Now if one accepts the principle of democracy – that the
people decide, as a whole on something - it seems to me one there must be a hierarchy
of methods of implementing it, based on the purity and directness of the expression
of that will.
Rather than having a separate
Quote of the day here I’ll mention Aristotle: “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found
in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the
government - to the utmost.”
Having said that then surely a direct vote by each and every
individual in the population on a specific point must morally and in all
honesty beat any other method? The method in the UK used is whatever side of
the question is supported by the majority.
In other words a referendum. Quelle surprise! By purest
co-incidence the UK has recently had just such a thing to decide upon leaving
the EU. The turnout was high (important to the democratic process) practically
everyone in the UK was eligible to vote and the decision was a majority for
leaving the EU – Simple enough to grasp.
Not a vote for a “Hard Brexit”, or a “Soft Brexit” or a “posture
sprung, memory foam Brexit, with down filled duvet”. Just stay vs leave.
So logically a leave result should result in Leave being
triggered and negotiations to get the best deal available, but if no reasonable
deal were on the table due to the desire of EU politicians to ‘Punish’ the UK
then that would be something we would have to live with and implicit in the
original question. In fact I seem to recall it being emphasized by some
Remainers before the vote so no one can claim it wasn’t on the table to begin
with.
Not all so-called parliamentarians necessarily approve of referenda as it cuts out the middle
man – THEM. Especially those implacably opposed to leaving the EU for
ideological reasons, ambition & Quid pro quo, or simple vested interests.
They are used to being the ones to decide, not the mere plebs they allegedly
represent..
Still the EU and it’s supporters can be quite viciously and
deviously ruthless when roused. They have never let a little thing like an unfavorable
referendum get in the way of their project before. They just keep going back
and forcing another variation on the referendum or bypassing a referendum until
they get the s result they want, whereupon suddenly they are perfectly happy to
accept the result and will turn on anyone who isn’t, like a pack.
There are plenty of examples where countries have been told
to think again or had something imposed despite a referendum and in some cases
the rules have been twisted to allow new
treaties to be imposed by the back door by making a tiny change and renaming
them as something else.
Now the Remainers, fronted by anti-Brexit London based fund
manager Gina Miller and a legal team, are manipulating the judicial system to
block the PM initiating the leave process that is necessary in order to begin negotiations, as the
EU has insisted that no negotiation can begin until the after process is initiated.
Why? Apparently,
as best as I can tell, on the grounds that they want parliament to vote on the
leave package that has not been negotiated yet before the leave process can be initiated.
Egg/Chicken anyone? Catch 22 anyone?
Surely the best time for parliament to get involved is once
something is actually up for agreement?
Now the Remainers are starting an ‘independent’ pressure
group to initiate criminal proceedings against the leave campaign, claiming
they lied about how much cash might, or might not, be available for the NHS (British National Health Service). Considering some of
the lies pedaled by the remain camp. (Remain claimed Brexit would lead to War for instance) That is
difficult to accept. If so every politician and party since the first world war
would have been equally guilty including the remain camp .
A democrat is someone who will support the democratic
process even when they don’t agree.
As Jerrod Carmichael said: “True democracy isn’t just listening
to people you agree with,”
He is right - and I would go further. True democracy isn’t just about accepting
a result you agree with.
It is about accepting a result you don't necessarily agree with. It certainly isn’t about subverting a result you don’t agree with.
