Democrasy is a system of government based on majority rule via votes. Take it up with the dictionary about democracy. Obvs you know more than they.

Clearly you aren't better informed for another vote since you oppose Brexit.

:thumbs:

Opposition, counter-politics and protest have been essential pillars of democracy since its infancy in ancient Greece... it's built into the very theory of democracy itself.

I'd suggest, jaxie, that if you want to understand democracy you might need to go a little further than "The dictionary". I'd say start with Aristotle and Plato's "Republic", then work your way up through modern political theory.

I don't know if this is "horribly patronising OMG" or whatever, I also don't particularly care... the idea that you can define and grasp a complex and vast political theory like modern democracy via a two-line dictionary definition is utterly ridiculous :facepalm:.

You are out of context. You seem to have a thing for me TS. :flutter: I clearly rattle your cage. :thumbs:

democracy

the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/democracy

''The researchers released their finding as an “exclusive” to a single news source – Buzzfeed – on Friday which then presented the findings with a heavy dose of analysis from one of the authors but with no substantive explanation of the methodology.

Buzzfeed also presented the findings in a series of charts which gave the appearance that they were showing levels of support for various propositions in the manner of a conventional opinion poll. Confusion was added by the fact that the headline findings presented by Buzzfeed did pertain to rough percentages of the population.

The result was that most journalists - including the Independent's - followed up the Buzzfeed story without fully grasping the methodology.

The researchers did make details of their methodology available on Friday and Saturday to journalists that requested it.

Yet they did not publish the full document online until Sunday afternoon, meaning that for the best part of two days statisticians and the general public were unable to access it and had to rely on partial and flawed media reports.''


In other words, it's total bollocks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/infact/...-a7892216.html

Same thing really, try the Oxford English Dictionary where it points out this is via a majority. You are going to inflate my ego if you keep singling me out to dissect everything I say. :wavey:

You asked for a dictionary definition, I gave you one, don't shoot the messenger.

I didn't ask but thanks for making me feel super important and special and pointing out the impact I have on you with my posts.

It's not out of context at all. You believe that opposing Brexit is undemocratic. You are incorrect.

Yeah I really am ****ing sick of the 'you have no respect for democracy' crap. The irony is that in expressing that, one is...not respecting other people's democratic right to freedom of speech, expression and to protest :laugh2:

Democracy does not begin and end at the ballot box. We have referenda and elections and parties and outcomes win and lose. That doesn't mean that all opposition must then be silenced, because in a democracy people are entitled to disagree and continue to campaign for what they believe in. Indeed, everyone's favourite Champion of the People Wanker-Banker Nigel Farage said in the days before the referendum that a 52/48 victory for remain would be 'unfinished business'. It's convenient how people who voted to leave forget that :hehe:

This is where you have a problem because I have never said that or anything like it so you are misquoting me. :shrug: It was another poster who stated it was undemocratic unless there is a second referendum. I have no issues with people in opposition or campaigning but suggesting we should keep voting until we get the answer you want is certainly not democracy.

What I do believe is that it is undemocratic to demand another referendum if you don't like the result but that seems to be a core of Scottish politics so maybe that's why you are supporting that view. I also believe it is undemocratic to put our country into a political experiment and putting treaties into law without asking the people who signed up for a trading market once in 40 years. Not to mention unelected officials making laws for us from Brussels.

Democracy isn't something you can shape so it only works for your point of view. Before you start your rant actually read who brought up democracy and in what context. No one has ever said there should be no campaigning. I don't care what Farage said or didn't say he is no longer relevant.

You suggested queries were taken up with a dictionary... I did that, it didn't correspond with your definition.

It's a debate, your posts are as important as the next persons, no more no less.

You are kidding me?!? Just because I support a lot of Corbyn politics doesn't mean I agree with everything he does. I'm left leaning and I take an active interest in politics from both sides... that's it!

As for your following sentence, it comes without content... its just waffle.

Oh you are suggesting democracy is decided by the minority vote then? I had no idea it worked that way. Thanks for educating us all and here I was thinking a first past the post system had been working in this country for generations. :shrug:

I think, like usual, you completely misunderstood his post because you saw what you wanted to see and not what he actually wrote. You also don't understand democracy. People ARE allowed to change their minds, hell we changed our minds about staying in the EU with this referendum, did we not?

Democratic decisions aren't written in stone, if that was the case then why have an election every few years? It's so we can change our minds about the leadership if we wish to do so.

You believe that someone not being happy about a result is 'undemocratic' which is quite simply bull**** and it's just you trying to silence opposing opinions again. People are allowed to be unhappy and voice their opinions, people are allowed to ask for another referendum and, if enough people agree to it then it should go ahead as that's pretty much how the first referendum came to be. You only seem to believe in your own warped version of what democracy is when it suits your agenda, you aren't willing to extend the same rights that allowed this referendum to occur to people of an oposing point of view.

I personally don't want another referendum. They say that, if a dog makes a mess, you should rub their nose in it and they'll learn not to do it again. The Leavers made a catastrophic decision and they should be made to experience the messy results of their terrible choices. Leavers shouldn't get a get out of jail free card in the form of another referendum. They ****ed up, they pay the price. The UK on the brink of collapse will hopefully get people to be smarter when it comes to political choices in the future.

It's endlessly hypocritical, they want the benefits of freedom of speech, expression and all those other rights....just as long as it doesn't apply to people who don't share their point of view.

I haven't suggested anything , you're putting words in my mouth :nono:

Frequently repeating a vote until the outcome changes would be undemocratic. Holding a second vote after sufficient time for dust to settle, and if there is an indication that there may have been a shift in public opinion, is ENTIRELY democratic.

You would have a point if there were to be 3 "out" votes with repeated votes, then one "in" vote and they stop. In fact, ONE follow up vote showing the same result should be sufficient to prove that the result truly reflects the situation.

But if a slim out vote was to be followed up by a resounding in vote? How is it in any way democratic to go with the result of one just because "it was first!". It's very childish, "finders-keepers!" logic.

Because when I voted out, I believed ‘Brexit meant Brexit’ but in the aftermath of that vote, we’ve all had the opportunity to educate, speculate and discuss the sort of relationship we want to keep or abandon with Europe. There’s a myriad of possibilities and those possibilities are now categorized as hard or soft options.

What has become clear is, we are about to jump from one ship and join another. We are swapping one trade deal with the EU for another with America but this new trade deal is much bigger and much more ominous than anything we’ve ever had with the EU. The only way we can shake hands with Trump is to abandon all free trade with Europe. That’s the ‘hard’ option... the one you want and the one I don't want.

I never said the Cons did badly because of Brexit :conf: I suggested voters don't like the way we are being frog marched out without a deal that will best suit our economy.

The Independent, what a surprise. Biased rubbish.

It was reported by The Independent and numerous other papers but the source came from Buzzfeed https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/r...pjj#.ax5B6YMYY

It is a legitimate source and probably not one you wanted because it exposes quite a number of things.

If you believed Brexit was Brexit then you should understand that Brexit means British exit. You exit by leaving with both feet and closing the door behind you, you don't exit by leaving the door open and standing in the doorway.

There is no hard or soft option there two options, stay or leave. We voted to leave.

It wasn't a lie though. It was made by Farage, who wasn't and isn't in a position to dictate policy. It was a suggestion.