| ▲ | FartyMcFarter 2 days ago |
| Then we'd have to hear the Brexiteers whining on and on about democracy. This way we get to see their project fail. I don't know which one is worse. |
|
| ▲ | TulliusCicero 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Democracies require supermajorities for stuff all the time, it's pretty typical, especially for constitutional changes. And in this case, it would also mean that Britain would've joined the EU with a 55%+ majority as well. |
|
| ▲ | UpsideDownRide 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is nothing inherent to democracy that says that everything needs a simple majority for a decision. |
|
| ▲ | danaris 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few with reduced quality of products, increased prices, worse access to other countries, and a host of other problems... ...or we have to listen to some people whine? |
| |
| ▲ | whateverboat 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Hm, which is worse: An entire country of millions of people suffers from the shortsighted actions of a few Few? 51% is a few? I mean, I also think Brexit was a monumentally stupid decision, but 51% of people wanted it, no? Even assuming that everyone who didn't vote would have voted for remain, given the voter turnout of 71% (which is already very high for any election, typical turnout is around 57%), 35% of people said yes. That's not a few, that a big chunk. | | |
| ▲ | multjoy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The biggest issue is that at the time of the vote, nobody had any idea of what Brexit actually meant. The leave campaign could literally promise anything and a) they wouldn’t have to deliver it and b) everyone who voted for Brexit can reasonably suggest that they voted for something other than what was actually delivered. The best you can say about the Brexit vote is that 51% wanted something other than the status quo. | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if 51% weakly want something and 49% strongly want the opposite? | | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If 51% of the population weakly wanted something they would lose the vote because most wouldn't bother voting. Didn't happen here. | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Strongly enough to vote for it. |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The "few" I'm talking about are the politicians who pushed for the referendum, and the politicians and media execs that cheerfully portrayed it as if Brexit was going to cause Europe to give the UK everything it wanted with zero drawbacks or tradeoffs, as if they were still the Mighty And Unchallengeable British Empire. And in any case, the point of my post was the "suffering", not the "few". |
| |
| ▲ | FartyMcFarter 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's a good point, but sometimes it's a good thing for people to see the consequences of their (and others') choices. Perhaps it could have some good medium / long-term effects. | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The winners are still whining anyway. | | |
| ▲ | teamonkey 2 days ago | parent [-] | | More like “we won, don’t mention it” It was recently the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. Not a single firework. |
|
|
