That our government had a clear form of democracy as basis for actions

[Hawkinspace]

Some people see asking for a Final Say on the Brexit deal as undemocratic. We've voted, they reason, therefore we must leave. The way the whole matter has been managed, since the first decision to hold a referendum onwards, has made me question our idea of democracy. The word is freely used but seems empty of the rigour that could be applied here. I thought of a phrase instead, functional democracy. We have a duty to ensure our democracy is in good working order. Googling, I found the phrase has been thought of before (unsurprisingly!) and is part of an elaborate hierarchy of stages. That's not what I 'm getting at though, but rather a simple principle that government needs to ensure the democracy is fit for purpose. On present showing it is not. Does this legitimise a Final Say?

@BejamNostalgia
You refer to remainers being arrogant and put forward several points on which you disagree. I don't get why views are arrogant because you disagree with them? Or were you saying something other than that?
I mainly want to pick up on your view that it's undemocratic to object to leaving the EU on the basis of the 2016 result. What do you think of the fact that some Leave campaigns including Vote Leave acted illegally? And that online means were used to manipulate the vote? That a foreign country is thought to have been implicated?
And bearing in mind that both the economic stability and social fabric of our country were at stake, does none of that concern you? I am genuinely seeking to understand how you could arrive at the view you have of democracy seeming to be exempt of such concerns. What have I missed in your point of view?

@Moussemoose
You discuss these issues very knowledgeably. Have you studied a related field? I've only really become gripped by questions about democracy and the constitution/government with the onset of Brexit debates and the dilemma we find ourselves in. I wonder about following up a study course or the likes.

Political science and constitutional politics was part of my degree a long, long time ago. I am a bit of a constitutional nerd.

It is a massive source of frustration to me that I have been banging on about some of these issues for years and no one was interested. Electoral and constitutional reform are 'boring' and no one cares.

And now the long term repercussions of our inadequate system are coming home to roost everyone is discovering the issues and pontificating with little or no background knowledge.

The idea that democracy is one simple idea - the majority rules - is naive and ignorant. A democratic system needs to balanced and nuanced to work well, it is boring, detailed and complex.

The devil is in the detail of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, clauses and procedure.

No one wants to do the boring ground work they just want a system that does what they want as if by magic. It's like driving a car, you just want it to start when you turn the key.

If you are interested the Electoral Reform society is a good place to start looking.

I have a question for leavers.

Assume, for a minute, that all the information RTB and other remainers have been trying to give you is correct. Assume, for a minute, that leaving the EU without a deal will cause the Irish troubles to re-erupt, will cause food shortages throughout the country, will result in one set of job losses after another, in fact a total breakdown of the economy occurs, and people start dying as a result.

How much faith will you have in the democratic process of the referendum if the country starts to crash around you?

What mousse says about the complexity of politics is entirely correct. Every complex society throughout history has discovered that they need a trained and educated class of some kind to maintain high population levels and specialised society roles. In a democracy of any kind that class includes the general populace, which therefore needs high levels of understanding and information. Both of those were compromised for this referendum by the appeal to emotional soundbites.

You cannot simply ignore the need for that complexity. You cannot simply undo that complexity in large societies. If you do - it has been done, in what are usually termed collapses of civilizations, for instance in the collapse of Rome - then whatever replaces it will involve a much lower population than before. A much lower population. I don't think Britain would even be able to maintain the 40 million it can currently feed.

And, incidentally, a couple of hundred years later, the need for complexity starts to re-establish itself if only in the face of the need for defence, and the cycle starts again.

@Moussemoose
Thanks for your reply which is interesting and informative. I will look up the ERS thank you. I can understand why people want it to. E quick and easy -human nature- but the key to engaging us all at a more serious level must surely lie in education? I've long thought that my own education a fair long time ago was devoid of preparation for life as a citizen of a country. Now I see it as even more deficient in understanding what democracy is, that precious thing which so badly needs our tlc. I believe children now may get a bit more but not as much as needed.

I guess your question can be partly answered by what is democracy? It means many things to many people.

It’s interesting that the majority of time in the representive democracy model we use most of the votes support very much the status quo with maybe a little bit of tinkering round the edge, it generally supports the economically, socially and academically priveledged as these are the people who, generally speaking are in a position to put themselves forward to represent us. Even if they aren’t at the start they are generally drawn into playing the game in order to survive in Westminster.

On the other hand when we have a one person one vote on an issue we actually get a snapshot of what people actually want, what their experience of life is, what their perceptions are on how this country is run.

This time it’s basically flown in the face of what the thoughts are of many of the people who usually act as the country’s voice, both in the political,economic and social fields.

What this whole Brexit vote has shown me is how unrepresentative our democracy is, the ruling elite who are supposed to represent us telling us what we think, why we made decisions and that we are wrong.

It’s this lack of understanding which I think forcing a second referendum on the people makes it undemocratic, it’s the ruling elite saying we don’t agree with what you think so try again.

If we have another vote it needs to be a different question, eg no deal or Mays deal.

Ah stop with elites narrative.

What the brexit vote shows is that one person, one vote and direct democracy with no checks and balances. is a ridiculous way to run a country.

Most of the reasons for voting leave are wrong. On here leavers will scream that no one voted because of the bus, yet politicians and journalists repeatedly say that "where is the £350m " is the question they are asked most often. The fact that most people appear to have voted on a have your cake and eat it basis, or on half fudged facts, or xenophobia shows that it really is a ridiculous position to be in.

And Yes, it is Xenophobia, all the appeals to reasonableness about having sympathy for the poor are utterly disingenuous, massively over stating the impact of immigration, and blaming it things it isn't to blame for.

The "Elites" narrative is bullshit, the leave campaign was led by the elite.

@Deadbudgie
I was with you up to the point where you referred to forcing another vote on people. Enquiry into Brexit have shown any form of it will leave us poorer. In those circumstances you say we are having to force people to express their preference in the light of the facts. Really ? That leads me to question the sanity of those who are against a vote on the final options.

us telling us what we think

No they MPs vote according to their conscience. We vote for individuals not party's.

We place trust in our MPs to do the best for the country. They do not simply follow the will of the people.

If you don't like this work to change the constitution.

@Hawkinspace if the EU had changed in the time since the first vote or indeed if we knew in detail of the relationship we would have with the EU after Brexit I could see why people would want a second vote. Not sure I would still agree with it but maybe there would be more justification.

All we are only slightly clearer about is the exit mechanism and the initial position when we leave (although thats still up in the air). Finalising our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world (as much as this can be done in the international world of politics and diplomacy) is likely to take several yearsafter brexit.

Your op was a bit wordy. I'm against another referendum because I fear the phrase "No Deal" on there as an option. Some people are stupid enough to choose it. I didn't say Leave voters were stupid. I said No Deal supporters were stupid. It would be economic suicide whereas Leave under WA would be manageable if a bit shit.

@Deadbudgie
You're right about the time it'll all take. Even if we rescinded A50 immediately it would take some time to regroup as we can never go back to the status quo ante. Yet it's been established that all forms of Brexit would leave us poorer. I yet have to grasp why anyone less comfortably off than JRM would want to invoke reduction in economic security.