So I will. I wish it was that straightforward.

Of course the new government has a majority large enough to do almost whatever it wants and a mandate to take us out of the EU. I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.

However, this situation is the result of a sequence of events that bring in to question the way things were done and whether our system has become unfit for purpose.

We held a referendum, which has no traditional place in the UK system of democracy. It asked a simple question about a complex issue, the complexities of which became markedly more apparent the longer the detail became exposed. The result showed we are almost equally divided on the issue, whilst the Parliament we had at the time was clearly largely in favour of remaining.

So a reluctant Parliament, having committed to respecting the result, enacted legislation they did not agree with. This raises the first question. If we are to use referendums in the future to decide constitutional matters should we demand a super majority before any change is agreed? This would avoid disputes and divisions as it would then be obvious that an overwhelming number wanted the change. Remember that in the USA it takes a super majority in the Senate to convict an impeached President. So there is a sort of example to consider.

The second question is whether we now need to seriously start considering using proportional representation. In the years prior to 2016 Farage and UKIP had garnered a significant level of support for their Eurosceptic stance but only had achieved one MP in Parliament. Unsurprisingly their supporters felt unrepresented and resentful. Under a PR system it is likely they would have got around 70 MPs who could then have argued their case in Parliament which would have removed those feelings. There the majority of MPs would have voted down any move to leave but UKIP could have continued to campaign at future elections to try to force their way into government, either a majority one of as part of a coalition.

Should PR have been our system the Tories would have had no need to call a referendum on the Brexit issue as it would have been dealt with in Parliament. They may have been forced again into coalition, perhaps with UKIP, which in turn could have led to the EU being forced to offer satisfactory compromises.

I realise it's speculation but the reality is that Cameron held the referendum solely to benefit the Tories and see off the UKIP threat. It went wrong.

So to avoid a similar situation in the future, which might well be one which the Brexiteers don't like, ought we not now start to seriously consider PR?

This all was then compounded when Johnson lost his majority through defections and rejections but the main opposition party failed to act in the national interest and allow a temporary government of national unity to take over and arrange to ask the people to confirm how they felt on the specific issue of Brexit, having had 3 years of experience and reflection and now knowing what the options actually looked like. Corbyn delivered Brexit to Johnson gift wrapped as an early Christmas present.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Your posts often have me scratching my head in trying to discover the meaning but this one?

If I were not already bald I would soon be.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

'It's certainly true that there are restrictions on the ownership of land and any business must be at least 60% owned by Filipinos. The motivation for that was a fear of the Chinese and Japanese buying up the land and starting businesses that threatened the dominance of the oligarch families.'

If this were true, then this rule would only apply to the Chinese and Japanese.

Except it applies to all foreigners.

Disingenuous......This type of rule applies in far more countries than just the Philippines.....Like China and Japan itself, which also have foreigner restrictions.....Tell me, are they scared of the Filipinos or perhaps they are scared of themselves.

Risible.....and again I note that you appear to think you know better than those that have lived their all their lives.

Oh and oligarch families and de facto monopolies and power bases exist in all countries....especially the west. The Philippines are no exception.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 10.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

"If this were true, then this rule would only apply to the Chinese and Japanese."

It IS true. The reason it applies to all is to avoid giving the Chinese and Japanese offence by picking them out. As many know "face" is a very important issue in Asia.

If other countries do it then their reasons are not known to me. My experience is in the Philippines.

I know enough. I have lived there for some years. Which I suspect is rather more than most others here.

The control of the oligarchs in the Philippines is nothing whatsoever like anything that exists here, or anywhere else in Europe.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Oh look, WE knows the motivations of why laws are retained in the Philippines.

If only it wasn't for those Chinese and Japanese they would just open themselves up to foreign internationalism.

Yeah, yeah.

Exploitation doesn't have a race.....exploiters are universal.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 10.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

We agree about something then because I don't care a "rat's arse" about skin colour either. Some here though do, frequently prefixing their comments on this subject with "white", when the truth is we are all mixed now and our ancient ancestors were probably very black. Even the "indigenous people of these islands who are predominately a Anglo-Saxon northern European people" are mixed and are being further mixed every day. The strength of the DNA signal just tells us we are all human beings. Nothing else.

I also agree that it's about a common culture which needs to be defended and preserved.

Not though at the cost of those with links to other cultures being able to retain and celebrate them. We accept the local proud Scotsman wearing his kilt and playing the bagpipes in the pub on Burns night. Just don't do it on my front lawn at dawn on a Sunday.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jan 2020 10.33am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.