ingliz wrote:How is it 'anti-democratic' to offer the people a vote in a democracy?
:?:
It's not 'anti-democratic',to "offer the people a vote in a democracy".
Indeed, there is no 'democracy' without a "vote".
I'm sure that's not what you meant though, so, in the context of leaving the E.U, I will repeat what I have posted so many times about the issue, but which certain posters seem not to understand the reality is from the 'democractic viewpoint.
First of all, some people seem to think that the only 'democracy' in this country, is that which is displayed within the confines of Westminster, that is as far away from the reality as one can get.
Secondly, parliamentary democracy is just one form of democracy in a 'free' country, referenda are another, which, for some reason or other, some people seem to believe, are a matter of 'choice', as to whether or not they accept the results of-depending on their prejudices, oif course.
That is completely wrong, unless it explicitly states beforehand, that the result will not be binding, or accepted, in which case, what, exactly is the point of holding one.Other people say that, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, only parliament can decide on all 'democratic' matters, in other words, politicians want to 'monopolize' democracy, which again, is wrong.
Some MP's say that they can simply ignore referendum results, because 'Parliament is Sovereign', that only applies to it's own decisions taken within parliament-parliament being merely the period applicable under the Parliament Act, currently 5 years.
Facts are, people elect a government through elections, not a parliament, which is composed simply of elected members representing(primariliy)their constituents & secondly their respective political party's interest that sometimes do or don't happen to coincide.
It's perfectly possible for BoJo to take us out of the E.U with the involvement of parliament, or despite it's involvement, that is because all of the relevent debates, with votes have been concluded on the matter in hand, which only parliament can undo(if it wishes)& there is nothing else which parliament can do.
Now, the referendum(apart from the Acts to leave - Article 50) etc, was not a business of parliament, it was an instruction by the people to their elected representatives, the majority as manifesting itself by the government, to carry out that act of leaving the E.U.
Now, that there is no majority is irrelevent, because it is not an issue for further debate, it's an instruction to ACT, the mere existence of a government, gives the government the power to deliver without parliament by virtue of the referendum not being part oif parliamentrary everyday business as manifested by party manifesto policies, that's why it's extraneous to parliamentary business.
It is entirely up to the government within parliament, to decide the business of the House, should BoJo not place government business on the order papers, there will be no nce of ammending something that doesn't exist, once Oct 31 passes, he can present parliament with his own government's business.
As a point of interest which may, or not, educate some folks, in the U.K, a number of referendum have been held in the U.K, in fact, there have been 11 in total, most in connection with 'devolution', which, in a sense, is what the E.U issue is about.
The irony of all of this is, of course, that, it was the Labour Party, under Harold WILSON, that got parliament into accepting referendums for the explicit, singular purpose, of answering a binary question to which the public should have their say on.
Those referendums were all eventually delivered on by parliament no less(irony of ironies), you see, it's not that there is inherently anything wrong with alternate forms or methods of doing democracy, bhecause, whether it's directly, as by referendum's, or by elections, the sole purpose of 'democracy' is to give expression of the people's will'.
To then act as if nothing has happened(it hasn't in that the result has not been implemented), so that the instruction of the people can be ignored by those who think that the position they hold by virtue of the people, is nothing more than a calculated slap in the face to democracy itself.
In fact, they do this whenever they are elected as a government, because they think that the manifesto is just like a piece of blank paper, like that which Neville CHAMBERLAIN waved to the people on his return from seeing HITLER, is just what you want it to be & not what it actually is.
If parliament wishes to disregard the people's instructions, why bother asking question's in the first place, which then begs the other question, why ask people to vote anyway(many don't, including myself, for obvious reasons), which then begs the next question, what is the point of 'democracy' anyway if everything that follows from it completely ignores the people?
To answer your question in the way that you posited it, a referendum questtion is binary, there is only one democratic answer, there is nothing relative about it, it's 'all or nothing', you 'win' or you 'lose', that's democracy in action.
Once you accept that, you also acknowledge that politicians have been instructed(ordered) into i9mplementing what the electorate decided by the result.
Now, if politicians disagree with that, they should resign themselves to accepting it, or stand down, because they are not democrats if they ignore the people's
referendum orders.
There is an alternative which I have stated in my post, which, for some reason, which I cannot fathom,you seem to ignore, in favour of 'offering people a vote in a democracy', which is a complete & utter nonsense.
People have already voted democratically, they have already decided, they told MP's to pass the legislation(by implication)to deliver the people's orders & leave the E.U.
They have no choice, they have to deliver leave, or suffer the untold consequences for decades to come, I say that because those who seek to confound those orders to leave, will reap the whirlwind of their actions, which will be impacted on the people whose votes they & their political party depend on.