South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
If I say I'm gonna catch you when you fall, and then you jump because you think I'm going to catch you, and I don't catch you and you fall to your death, the fact that I betrayed you is not merely a feeling you have.
If I say I'm gonna catch you when you fall, and then you jump because you think I'm going to catch you, and I don't catch you and you fall to your death, the fact that I betrayed you is not merely a feeling you have.
That must be your own head you're patting.
Don't you know that a politician voting against the perceived will of the electorate is exactly the same as you falling to your death when expecting to be saved.
Yeah, stupid sheep, thinking politicians are there to serve them. They really should know better.
Parliament is elected to serve the people. That is their job description in a democracy. When they stand for election, they're offering their services to their prospective employers, the people. Insofar as the government called for a referendum and asked the people to make a decision, it is incumbent upon the employees of the people to carry out that decision faithfully, as opposed to betraying the decision by not acting in good faith. And should the employees sabotage the instructions of their bosses, their sabotage is a matter of fact and has nothing to do with emotive language. It is a de facto betrayal, in the same way that if someone hires you to clean some windows and you wipe mud all over them instead it would be a clear case of failing to do the job properly by way of disloyal behaviour, in much the same way that lying to you in order to provoke you into killing yourself would be disloyal behaviour. But you'd have us believe all this is just "emotional".
Parliament is elected to serve the people. That is their job description in a democracy. When they stand for election, they're offering their services to their prospective employers, the people. Insofar as the government called for a referendum and asked the people to make a decision, it is incumbent upon the employees of the people to carry out that decision faithfully, as opposed to betraying the decision by not acting in good faith. And should the employees sabotage the instructions of their bosses, their sabotage is a matter of fact and has nothing to do with emotive language. It is a de facto betrayal, in the same way that if someone hires you to clean some windows and you wipe mud all over them instead it would be a clear case of failing to do the job properly by way of disloyal behaviour, in much the same way that lying to you in order to provoke you into killing yourself would be disloyal behaviour. But you'd have us believe all this is just "emotional".
Sure, in theory, when the politician has been elected to be a representative of the people and the people have not explicitly made their wishes known by way of a referendum. If they truly object to carrying out the will of the people because of their conscience, then they ought to resign.
Not if it's a democracy.
Right, the public is usually not consulted on each and every decision, that's what makes most modern democracies representative democracies rather than direct democracies. However, the referendum is a very clear exception, and if people don't want the will of the people to carry the day, then they shouldn't pretend that they are a democracy, and should rather call the government something more accurate.
They are when a referendum has been instituted. We have a referendum decision in this case. It doesn't matter if the elites think they know better than the masses, they have a job to do and if they can't do it then as far as I'm concerned they should be forced out of office by any means necessary in favour of individuals who can.
I'm starting to get the feeling that Brexit will never happen
People seem to be struggling with the difference between emotion and language here. Ignorantly, or perhaps intentionally, assuming there's emotive intent behind words to fit whatever warped little minds they have.
Oh it is supremely easy to understand: only a simpleton would argue from a position of weakness without any evidence, hence it must have been simpletons doing it.
Yes it is. Serving the interests of the country means nothing if not serving the people who live inside it. And the same goes for being elected to serve one's constituents.
