[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You are out of context. You seem to have a thing for me TS.

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

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

This is where you have a problem because I have never said that or anything like it so you are misquoting me. 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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

This is where you have a problem because I have never said that or anything like it so you are misquoting me. 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.

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.