If you believe in our democratic process, then you leave it to those we delegate these decisions to. It was them who decided, foolishly, in my opinion, to head off UKIP, by holding a referendum. They had the power, and the duty, to continue to act when the process got so distorted and snared up with difficulties, that the initial, very close result, could no longer be trusted. They failed to do their duty. Not us, the voters. Our Parliament failed to act as they should have acted.

That's what needs to be reflected upon.

According to your beliefs...
1.The Government should have ignored the discontent of the public to the EU moving away from a pure trading block to something more political. Their voice should have been ignored. Presumably you would have also banned UKIP from standing at elections, to make sure that the EU movement continued with the UK part of it.
2. In future, any close election vote would automatically require a second vote to confirm the first (or a third to confirm the winner if a draw). If so, what percentage would be acceptable to you for a winner to be declared?
3. If the EU hadn't changed, then there would probably not be the discontent within a large section of the British Public. The EU changing was the catalyst to the discontent.
4. As I've said elsewhere, Ursula von der Leyen won with a 52% to 48% majority, and said "A majority is a majority"...would you like that contest to be re-run?
5. The one benefit you must see is that without having to refer to the EU for permission, the British electorate can now decide what direction the country moves. We can vote out who we don't think is doing the job we want them to do, and Parliament can debate and change what laws apply to us; a benefit, surely?

You are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with any "discontent" of the public. It was how it was handled, knowing how it was being manipulated and still is. Even in this thread, the scaremongering spectre of a "federal" Europe has been raised as if it was an inevitable destination for us, if we remained a member. It wasn't and was almost impossible to see how it would ever be a plausible outcome for our country.

Our Parliament is sovereign. Not the government, and not the results of referendums. Cameron in making his statement that the referendum result would be respected exceeded his authority. That was for Parliament to decide. He did so to pull the rug from under UKIP, and to save the Tory's skin, and not for the interests of the UK.

No-one's voice should be ignored. That includes mine and all the other people who voted to remain. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the decisions they take are fair, well-balanced, based on facts and in the best interests of our country. They use their collective judgement to do that being, as they are, our representatives and not our delegates. They failed to do their duty. Some brave souls tried, and lost their jobs as a consequence, being labelled scum and traitors in the process, whilst they were among the only truly honourable members. What many people thought they voted for in 2016 looked very different when it was finally served up in 2020. Parliament had a duty to stop, think and verify. They failed.

This was a unique situation, and any attempted comparison with general elections (which happen every 5 years) is meaningless. Elections for EU "Presidents" are an even more tenuous comparison. She leads the commission and was voted for by the council, not the people, and there was a lot of political manoeuvring involved. She serves a renewable 5-year term, so plenty of opportunity for a review.

You end with yet another scaremongering statement which has been allowed to become an established fact in the minds of the determined Leaver. This idea that we need to ask the EU for "permission" to do things. It just isn't true. We participated in all the decision-making processes in the EU, and opted out of those which didn't suit us. Parliament had to debate and approve any changes to our laws. The principal of subsidiarity governed the thinking. Where a decision was best taken in harmony with the other members, because it established uniformity and avoided barriers, then that's where it was taken. If it was best done locally, then that's where it was taken. There was nothing to fear. We remained in complete control. It's just that we agreed to co-operate when common sense dictated it was best to do so. Farage blustering in the EU Parliament, as the attention seeker he is, to wind up the gullible in the UK doesn't change that. I bet his absence is the best thing to have come out of Brexit for many other EU representatives.

You are completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with any "discontent" of the public. It was how it was handled, knowing how it was being manipulated and still is. Even in this thread, the scaremongering spectre of a "federal" Europe has been raised as if it was an inevitable destination for us, if we remained a member. It wasn't and was almost impossible to see how it would ever be a plausible outcome for our country.

Our Parliament is sovereign. Not the government, and not the results of referendums. Cameron in making his statement that the referendum result would be respected exceeded his authority. That was for Parliament to decide. He did so to pull the rug from under UKIP, and to save the Tory's skin, and not for the interests of the UK.

No-one's voice should be ignored. That includes mine and all the other people who voted to remain. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the decisions they take are fair, well-balanced, based on facts and in the best interests of our country. They use their collective judgement to do that being, as they are, our representatives and not our delegates. They failed to do their duty. Some brave souls tried, and lost their jobs as a consequence, being labelled scum and traitors in the process, whilst they were among the only truly honourable members. What many people thought they voted for in 2016 looked very different when it was finally served up in 2020. Parliament had a duty to stop, think and verify. They failed.

This was a unique situation, and any attempted comparison with general elections (which happen every 5 years) is meaningless. Elections for EU "Presidents" are an even more tenuous comparison. She leads the commission and was voted for by the council, not the people, and there was a lot of political manoeuvring involved. She serves a renewable 5-year term, so plenty of opportunity for a review.

You end with yet another scaremongering statement which has been allowed to become an established fact in the minds of the determined Leaver. This idea that we need to ask the EU for "permission" to do things. It just isn't true. We participated in all the decision-making processes in the EU, and opted out of those which didn't suit us. Parliament had to debate and approve any changes to our laws. The principal of subsidiarity governed the thinking. Where a decision was best taken in harmony with the other members, because it established uniformity and avoided barriers, then that's where it was taken. If it was best done locally, then that's where it was taken. There was nothing to fear. We remained in complete control. It's just that we agreed to co-operate when common sense dictated it was best to do so. Farage blustering in the EU Parliament, as the attention seeker he is, to wind up the gullible in the UK doesn't change that. I bet his absence is the best thing to have come out of Brexit for many other EU representatives.

You know that you don't have to derail EVERY thread you partake in, to turn it into a 'out-voted remainers rant'

No-one is interested anymore, this thread is about the french election & Marine Le Pen. There's probably a few Brexit/EU/remoaners thread on the HOL, go frequent those & spout your rubbish there. Thank you.