7 ms·

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.

danaris 20d ago
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?
- FartyMcFarter 20d ago
  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.
- whateverboat 20d ago
  > 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.
  - HPsquared 20d ago
    What if 51% weakly want something and 49% strongly want the opposite?
    - 1718627440 20d ago
      Strongly enough to vote for it.
    - ipaddr 20d ago
      If 51% of the population weakly wanted something they would lose the vote because most wouldn't bother voting. Didn't happen here.
  - danaris 20d ago
    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".
  - multjoy 20d ago
    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.
- tonyedgecombe 20d ago
  The winners are still whining anyway.
  - teamonkey 20d ago
    More like “we won, don’t mention it” It was recently the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. Not a single firework.
UpsideDownRide 19d ago
There is nothing inherent to democracy that says that everything needs a simple majority for a decision.
TulliusCicero 19d ago
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.

danaris 20d ago

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?

FartyMcFarter 20d ago
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.
whateverboat 20d ago
> 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.
- HPsquared 20d ago
  What if 51% weakly want something and 49% strongly want the opposite?
  - 1718627440 20d ago
    Strongly enough to vote for it.
  - ipaddr 20d ago
    If 51% of the population weakly wanted something they would lose the vote because most wouldn't bother voting. Didn't happen here.
- danaris 20d ago
  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".
- multjoy 20d ago
  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.
tonyedgecombe 20d ago
The winners are still whining anyway.
- teamonkey 20d ago
  More like “we won, don’t mention it” It was recently the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. Not a single firework.

UpsideDownRide 19d ago

There is nothing inherent to democracy that says that everything needs a simple majority for a decision.

TulliusCicero 19d ago

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.