Sixteen year old nails it.

https://www.indy100.com/article/brex...-watch-8834711

I've highlighted her words for the benefit of those who don't clock the link.

I'd like to say that I think you are all right and this goes back much further than this week. It goes back much further than any of you have said.

It goes back to when the plans for the referendum were first announced. It goes back further to David Cameron trying to negotiate in the EU.

David Cameron made the referendum policy because he didn't want to risk losing 10 or 15 seats to UKIP and look where it has got us.

This has always been because of the Tory party playing party politics with issues that are going to be huge generational changes for all of us.

She's probably correct with the gist. But by the time 2016 rolled around those who did partake in the 1975 referendum to vote for a continuation of Britain's membership had to be at a minimum aged 59; meaning the great majority of citizens three years ago had never had an opportunity at the ballot to vote one way or t'other on the issue as the UK median age was 40-yeard-old. Most reasonable people would accept that the union people voted for in 1975 was a rather different one to what it became 41 years later.

I'm 16-years-old. I didn't get a say in Brexit and I won't get a say in it because there is not going to be a second referendum as things stand.

Either way, I think we have to accept that this is not an issue of parties not coming together. This is not an issue of direct democracy, of a people's vote being able to solve what it failed to do in the first place.

What we all need to look at is the fact that this is all caused by a party putting itself first before the country it is trying to govern.

What we need to do is not look back to a people's vote but we need to look at a further extension and we need to solve this where it all should have started, where it all could have been avoided in the first place, by going back to a general election and representative democracy because that's what this country was built on.

I think she's saying the only way a referendum should have been held in 2016 was if it was included in the Tory Party manifesto and a majority in Parliament approved via a vote. She appears to laud what she describes as a 'representative democracy' which is both curious and contradictory as no-one has ever had the opportunity to vote for any of the 900+ members of the second chamber or for the nation's head of state. It's obvious to iconoclasts and anyone with an IQ above subnormal that that isn't democracy but perfectly ordinary people dutifully parrot the same nonsense. Moreover, the party that wins an overall majority at a General Election usually does so with just 40% of the popular vote and a much smaller percentage of those eligible to vote which results in circa 33% dictating policy for everyone. As Jim Royal might say: "democracy UK-style is bollocks as the minority rule the majority". He'd be correct, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

I've highlighted her words for the benefit of those who don't clock the link.

I'd like to say that I think you are all right and this goes back much further than this week. It goes back much further than any of you have said.

It goes back to when the plans for the referendum were first announced. It goes back further to David Cameron trying to negotiate in the EU.

David Cameron made the referendum policy because he didn't want to risk losing 10 or 15 seats to UKIP and look where it has got us.

This has always been because of the Tory party playing party politics with issues that are going to be huge generational changes for all of us.

She's probably correct with the gist. But by the time 2016 rolled around those who did partake in the 1975 referendum to vote for a continuation of Britain's membership had to be at a minimum aged 59; meaning the great majority of citizens three years ago had never had an opportunity at the ballot to vote one way or t'other on the issue as the UK median age was 40-yeard-old. Most reasonable people would accept that the union people voted for in 1975 was a rather different one to what it became 41 years later.

I'm 16-years-old. I didn't get a say in Brexit and I won't get a say in it because there is not going to be a second referendum as things stand.

Either way, I think we have to accept that this is not an issue of parties not coming together. This is not an issue of direct democracy, of a people's vote being able to solve what it failed to do in the first place.

What we all need to look at is the fact that this is all caused by a party putting itself first before the country it is trying to govern.

What we need to do is not look back to a people's vote but we need to look at a further extension and we need to solve this where it all should have started, where it all could have been avoided in the first place, by going back to a general election and representative democracy because that's what this country was built on.

I think she's saying the only way a referendum should have been held in 2016 was if it was included in the Tory Party manifesto and a majority in Parliament approved via a vote. She appears to laud what she describes as a 'representative democracy' which is both curious and contradictory as no-one has ever had the opportunity to vote for any of the 900+ members of the second chamber or for the nation's head of state. It's obvious to iconoclasts and anyone with an IQ above subnormal that that isn't democracy but perfectly ordinary people dutifully parrot the same nonsense. Moreover, the party that wins an overall majority at a General Election usually does so with just 40% of the popular vote and a much smaller percentage of those eligible to vote which results in circa 33% dictating policy for everyone. As Jim Royal might say: "democracy UK-style is bollocks as the minority rule the majority". He'd be correct, too.

---

She can vote for whatever she wants after she has contributed to society and paid her fair share of tax. No representation without taxation :biggrin: