Brexit

[ludwig]

The people wanted it. Their elected representatives didn't. Isn't that the whole problem?

[Davemano]

Exactly.

[jim360]

That, and the elected representatives asking the question not for finding out the answer but for killing the issue.

[Kromovaracun]

Not entirely. The fundamental problem is that a "pure" Brexit does not appear to be achievable without serious harm to the country. Certainly the expectation that we'd just be 100% sovereign after leaving the EU is not realistic.

[Maydup]

About half of the people voted, and about half of them wanted it; their elected representatives are dealing with a similar divide, thats the problem.

[KARL]

There are many sides to "the problem", not least that the vote was very close to being even (to deny that is clinging to semantics) and that well below the entire electorate took part (a common flaw and a fault in the "democratic" concept). The possibility/likelihood that, since the referendum and into the foreseeable future, the actual count of would-be repetitions of that particular opinion poll might yield a reverse majority (however small) back and forth on repeated tests is really quite high. We are seeing the worst manifestations of "democracy", a once slim majority on the verge of forcing a minority by an equally slim margin into something long-term (and as both sides see it) that will have major consequences. Every part of the society shows these differences in aims, including among politicians - is that so surprising ? Is it not democratic for each side to want to see its aims realised, or is that a right held by only one of them ?

[Gromit]

// The people wanted it //

Out of an electorate of 46 million, 17million wanted to Leave the EU. So a THIRD of the people wanted it.

[cassa333]

A pure Brexit would not do serious harm to the country if they had done their job properly. If they had worked as hard on lrpeaving as they have on not we would be in a relatively good position.

Nothing in life is always going to be easy but mitigation on the negatives and bolstering the good would have seen a positive ‘pure’ Brexit.

The only reason Brexit would be a disaster is not planning. And of course the remainextremists in parliment are in charge.

[cassa333]

And as has been said before. The majority of those that bothered to vote.

The others either didn’t qualify or didn’t bother. Therefore the majority ‘won’ but as is the won’t of modern day, the losing side has done its best to get their own way.

[gulliver1]

Gromit 08.05. Spot on.

[diddlydo]

A minority of the electorate wanted to leave so that should have knocked the whole idea of leaving on the head.

[Old_Geezer]

The "serious harm" bit is overstated. Every change needs to settle down and there's been two years for business and authorities to prepare. So; there's a short period of delay for lorries until they return to moving as they do now. And some paperwork to get used to, and new trade deals/conditions. The sort of thing one takes in one's stride while improving the situation. It's exaggerated in order to worry folk into supporting the wrong option, short term feeling of relief at not having to implement/accept change instead of long term improvement.

[Kathyan]

It makes me wonder if the people who are moaning about the result of the referendum actually voted?

[Gromit]

// Their elected representatives didn't. //

These elected representatives were voted in AFTER the referendum, so ‘the people’ made that choice. Mrs May has overseen this debacle because ‘the People’ gave her party the most votes.

[Old_Geezer]

One cannot reasonably try to use abstentions to pretent the 'do nothing' case as better than it is. Abstentions don't count. Over half the voters voted for it so half the nation wanted it. If one is trying to pull statistical deception then concentrate on the 'only a third' who wanted to do nothing.

If the issue is that half the elected representatives are not supporting a true Brexit then that just shows that half the elected representatives are not up to the job. The vote was nationwide not constituency based, and the nation's decision was to leave. Since it was the nation's decision the nation's representatives are obliged to *all* be behind the decision. Neither to openly be against it, nor to pretend to be for it yet raise motions/vote on anything they can to delay/stop it.

The House has shown that it's unfit for purpose in it's present form. Were MPs more easily deselected by their constituency, that might change.

[agchristie]

//Were MPs more easily deselected by their constituency, that might change.//

We need more MP's to commit perjury following claims that they were not actually at the wheel of their car ;-)

[naomi24]

//The people wanted it. Their elected representatives didn't. Isn't that the whole problem? //

Yes.

[douglas9401]

Half the country can't decide if they want a starter or not never mind choose something important.

They need somebody looking out for them.

[pixie374]

That is exactly the problem, Ludwig. The turn out was 72.2%- one of the highest ever and it was so very well publicised for so long, I believe just about everyone who had an opinion and wanted to vote, probably did.
If the leave vote wasn't strong enough, then the remain vote was even weaker... so that isn't much of an argument.

[Gromit]

I am fine with 17,410,742 voted to Leave.

But that means 30,358,760 didn’t vote Leave.

Leave got the most votes, and therefore we are leaving. But not all ‘the people’ are leavers, just a third of them

[pixie374]

And less than a third are remainers? I'm not sure what your point actually is, from it. You can massage the figures both ways, but leave still won.