Brexit

[MrWayne]

fatslob-:O said:

MrWayne said:

Since when is it a principles of democracy that results can't be overturned by a follow-up election? I would even say that it is a principle of democracy that results can be overturned by follow-up elections, it happens all the time, you elect your parliament every four years and new governments overturn decisions made by the previous government (Trump overturned obamacare, Merkle overturned the decision to pull out of nuklear-elekticity when she came to power, etc). Sometimes you even have to vote until you get a good result, If the political parties in Germany fail to form a government after an election the citizens have to vote again, The british parliament is currently in a pretty similar situation, they don't want to stay in the EU, they don't want a no-deal scenario and they don't want May's deal, that's a typical deadlock.

Also what if a majority of the british people don't want the Brexit anymore? How would you justify Brexit then? A second referendum could clarify if the people still want the Brexit and if so what kind of Brexit.

@Bold Then explain where the end sight would be in holding endless elections ? The people who 'support' the "result of the first referendum" but then calls for another immediate second referendum are loaded with nothing but horseshit to plot on overturning the result ... 

"Fixed terms" is not the equivalent of 'overturning' the result so that's just an invalid comparison right there. Depending on the structure of the government, executive orders or bills can be 'repealed' but as far as but as far as "elections/referendums" are concerned these are things that cannot be 'overturned' in principle and for a very good reason within history since the slave states that feverishly opposed the ascension Abraham Lincoln got their asses kicked in end. Any liberal democracy that are worth their salt will make good on their commitments to their own people otherwise they face the wrath of a possible civil war. It has been a sacred tradition in liberal democracies to follow with the result instead of opposing it for nearly the last 100 years and it took a civil war in what is currently one of the greatest civilizations of all time to see why it wrong to discard it but to even suggest that the people keep voting until they get a 'good' result is absolutely preposterous and shortsighted ... (the point of democracy is that the people don't know what a 'good' result is since that's entirely a matter of opinion even with a consensus so that is not a justification for defiling the integrity of democracy) 

Also despite what the pundits out there say, no Trump did not repeal Obamacare and is in fact still the law currently. As for Merkel, no she wasn't responsible for decommissioning nuclear energy. It was the previous chancellor, Gerhard Shroder which put forth a law into decommissioning nuclear energy. Merkel only extradited the process after Fukushima meltdown ... 

As for German elections, only the president can call for new elections but they also have the power to reject potential laws, however are these actions acceptable when they are supposed to hold a ceremonial role like a monarch ? 

As for your last lines I could coax you into a similar question. How do you know that the majority of the british people still want EU membership and is democracy ever to be settled with successive votes ?  

Bold 1) That's exactly what i said, the decision to decommissioning nuclear energy was made by the previous government and her government stopped the decommissioning.

Bold 2) Why shouldn't it be acceptable? That's the power the constitution grants him. Also the german president can't be compared to the queen or other monarchs because he gets elected.

Bold 3) There is no final goal within democracy, it will always change. I don't know if the majority of the british people still want EU membership but a second referendum should clarify that

Things like a second Brexit referendum or a second election of the german Bundestag should always be the ultima ratio. If by a miracle the British parliament can agree on a solution(no deal, deal, stay in the EU), fine but if the parliament can't agree on anything there have to be a second referendum.

a) because nobody can justify a no deal scenario in this case, the government would be against it, the majority of the parliament would be against it and probably the majority of the british people would be against a no deal scenario.

b) a second referendum would be different than the first one because it would correct the big flaw the first one had. The big flaw the first referendum had was that you had to decide between the status quo, staying in the EU, something very concret, and Brexit, about whom nobody knew exactly what he would look like. Now people can decide between three very concrete options, no deal, May's deal or stay in the EU.