The right to self-determination is a fundamental right. Why would anyone try to subvert the will of

Being in the majority has to do with numbers, not with being right. Often the majority is horribly wrong. Protecting people from the will of the majority is the reason the bill of rights had to exist, as well as the 13th to 15th amendments.

A super majority of Americans believed in prohibition, until it didn't.

The right to self-determination is a fundamental right. Why would anyone try to subvert the will of [View all]
the majority of the people?

Thinking you know better than the majority of voters really smacks of elitism and is the height of arrogance. "I know what's best for you so just shut up and listen".

Democracy is truly a beautiful thing.

Democracy has to do with certain things being decided by the majority, not with the majority being right. Also, some people have highly selective ideas of what constitutes democracy, and even highly selective concepts of what constitutes telling others to "shut up and listen."

on behalf of the majority?

Laws often reflect social mores. If the majority of Americans want to ban alcohol, I don't see what's wrong with that.

numbers, not with being right" is not the equivalent of saying the minority has a right to say what is right or wrong. BTW, having rights? Also nothing to do with right or wrong. Neither do social mores.

george war bush, and worse. Some times the majority ain't right. With respect to Brexit, it's early and you might be right, although I'm not convinced.

Period.

and 80% vote to enslave the other 20%, that's direct democracy. Democracy in its purest form--no intermediate representatives, no weighting. Heck, use single-question paper ballots and count the results on daises in the middle of town square while televising it.

Democracy =/= "it works like I think it should." Democracy is a form of government, and as long as you comply with the form, it's a democracy.

It's like some of the Arab Spring movements, pissed because democracy didn't bring them prosperity. Again, democracy is a form of government, it is not a form of economics nor does it entail any sort of entailed or imposed income or wealth distribution. Comply with the form, and you have a democracy.

No modern definition of democracy would allow for slavery, as equality and human rights are important defining elememts. But since there really is no consensus, I suppose you can include a system of slavery in your definition, if you choose.

And for very large decisions, we typically require a super-majority for that reason.

does not have a right to stay in the EU.

That's a collective decision, made by the majority of people.

would support the anti democratic EU or oppose a national vote to leave

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong about the EU. Silly me, though, I did not realize that the OP was about brexit, so I am not taking a position on that. I've just been discussing indicia of right and wrong.

"Rights of the Minority" as if the vote was some sort of violation of people's rights

That is the principle behind the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

When it comes to voting, being in the majority = might. And, as we've all been taught, might does not make right. Might, in fact, has nothing to do with being right.

The problem is, the framing of the thread starting post is incorrect and that post tends to frame replies, too.

Have a great night.

That is what the amendment process is, in essence, unless there is a Constitutional convention.

This was part of Adrahil's reply 3

And for very large decisions, we typically require a super-majority for that reason.

I assume that Adrahil was referring to the Constitutional amendment process or to Senate cloture, neither of which has a thing to do with brexit.

Your entire reply 7 to Adrahil's reply 3 was

7. How would you get a supermajority in a referendum?

Your question did not seem limited to brexit, so I answered as I did.

A more general way of answering would have been "You require a super majority before the vote is taken."

As far as brexit, that vote is beyond the planning stages, so no reply I could have given to your question would have applied to brexit, unless one tries to get another vote taken.

The U.K. will be fine.
They'll get the fishing rights back, save billions in money they pay to the EU, control their borders and the people can elect their leaders and representatives who will actually be representatives of the people instead of faceless committees of unelected technocrats in Brussels who answer to no one

I can think of many things that deserve far more attention that whether UK ends up staying in the EU or going it on their own.

Unless one lives in the UK of course, but most of us live in the US.

the sky won't fall, the world won't end

I take no position on it, but Wall Street did.

it doesn't matter what I thought.

Marks in other words. They believe anything.

That's the biggest problem immediately for Britons: since they aren't in Schingen they technically don't have any travel rights within Europe, like the Swiss and Norwegians (that may have been who you were thinking of) do.

Switzerland no.

I'm more used to trying to subvert (what passes for) the will of the majority.

I thought a lot of us were just saying it was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

You're not saying that it's wrong to express an opinion on the matter are you?

nearly 52% vote to take away rights from the 48% of others. This is essentially what happened with Brexit.

Had the opposite situation happened, NO UK citizen would have been harmed. Several would have been in a snit and ranted like crazy for eternity. But they would still have all rights guaranteed them by EU membership.

Here is a lesson in style.

When tools of the state use phrases like "right to self-determination" and "will of the majority of the people", the modifier "state-approved" is silent.

Democratic "Underground"?... are we now so mainstream to be the smug majority?
Pointing out consequences and criticizing a decision is not "subverting the will of the people".
A majority of votes does not make something correct or not.
Marching lockstep in the arms of the majority is tyranny

It refers to a people, a natio, having a right to decide its own fate.

How they decide that is pretty much up to them. When colonialism ended, it included having local royals (equivalent to dukes or barons, not kings) decide. Sometimes there was an election.

Self-determination by the Brits might well include having a referendum followed by having their leaders decide otherwise. Since they're all part of "the people" how they decide this is an internal matter. If Cameron hadn't stepped down and his government ignored the Brexit referendum, gee, that's a Brit deciding what Brits would do. That's self-determination. (Redefine it all you want. I think that's just isotopic. Yes, I redefined isotopic, but isn't language about everybody having private lobes? There I go again, helping communication by redefining words. In other words, ... you don't get to redefine words on your own. )

Now, if the leaders were, I don't know, all Pakistani and furthermore not elected freely by the indigenous population, then you might have a point.