We are be willing to bet that if another Brexit referendum would be held today, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the EU. Take into account all of the lies that have been revealed, the knowledge people have gained. Of course, this is only a speculation and we won’t be dwelling on it.
The question is this, should there be another referendum?
Politics is no game. Maybe the brits just wanted to stick it to the overloads in the Brussels, maybe they really believed they are gaining less than receiving in value.
We are not blaming anyone. We know how frustrating it is. And that’s why people voted.
But given the tiny margin of the vote, should it count? Should it be taken in face value when the vote goes 49 to 51. That’s where democracy fails. When such a massive decision is on the line, a vote as close as this should mean that more information is needed and a second referendum must be held. Because if you do go forward with the Article 50, half of the country will be furious.
However, the Brits did go forward. Is there a turning back? Is it like a roulette wheel? Free spins where once the button has been clicked, there is no turning back. Or, if enough people would show their support, could the UK stop the process which will affect millions of young Brits in a negative way?”
In fact, it could. But it is critical to repeat ‘if enough people would show their support’.
Because today you can hear many stories about the shifted minds of the leave voters. But these are individual stories that in the grand scheme of things, doesn’t really matter.
For a new vote, for the process of Brexit stopped before the fatal May of 2019, people must stand up and raise their voices.
Knowing how humans work, we will wait until mid-May 2019 to start, or we’ll go to the streets en masse in June, 2019.
The shortest and simplest way to conclude this article we came up with was: in a few years, US will recover from Trump. But leaving the EU will negatively affect British people and their economy for decades.
However, there is still hope. There is still room to fix the situation. If you let the politicians decide for themselves, you are kidding yourself if you think they will do the right thing. They will be fine. Look at them. Corbin, 68, May, 61, Farage, 53. They are 60-year old millionaire lords. They will be fine either way. The people will have to soak up all the damage.
In recent years, the subject of multiculturalism has been one of the most frequently used terms in the political context. Whether it is a good or bad development for the democracies of the states is often treated critically. With the negative phenomenon of terrorism, global society is in an intense period of upheaval. Europe and North America have been characterized for centuries by a multicultural society.
Multiculturalism and democracy as a whole, a pair that should work in theory. If one considers the democratic value-setting, a multicultural democracy should be striven for. This raises the question, however, why the issue has become increasingly critical in recent years, and political groups with views on anti-multiculturalism have increasingly been able to assert themselves in the political arena.
Problem of multiculturalism in a democracy
A multicultural society and its democratic implementation often has to fight in terms of communication. Thus, it is not always easy to integrate foreign nationalities into a country where the language is not the same. The absolute lack of language skills is a factor that should not be underestimated.
Furthermore, multicultural democracies are constantly encountering problems with understanding of values, religion, and thought, and trade patterns of the different ethnic groups. Every nation has, despite the globalized world, its own personality and character, which is not always coincident with other states and can go hand in hand.
Multiculturalism is also often criticized from a financial perspective. A multicultural state, whether it pleases or not, must take a much deeper into the bag in order to be successful in integration goals.
Why does multiculturalism make sense for democracy?
Whether one is in a democracy for or against multiculturalism can often only be answered subjectively, but some argue for the social structure of a multicultural, democratic state.
In principle, for example, Europe is already a multicultural idea of a democracy, because many different cultures have been united in a democratic network. This can offer a variety of advantages.
Countries whose society consists of a mixed mix of different cultures have the chance to develop a much better understanding of other countries. This makes it much easier for these democracies to be able to react to situations of crisis with other countries. In addition, democracies benefit from multiculturalism. Successful business relations with other countries are based on the respect and understanding between the individual countries.
Multiculturalism in democracy understandably has both its advantages and disadvantages. Whether one is for or against it depends to a large extent on its own political attitude and conviction.
In today’s fight against terrorism, for example, it is unquestionably a good idea to have a healthy understanding of the crises, as this knowledge of other cultures and religions, as well as political decisions, can be made in a much calculated manner. Whether the global community creates multiculturalism in democracy as a basic pillar and not as a point of friction or problem, is probably still to be seen.
For years, Europe has been flooded by refugees, mainly from the Middle East and parts of Africa. In 2016, the refugee situation has increased enormously due to the destructive war in Syria.
The coasts of southern Europe saw thousands of people from small messengers flocking to their beaches for months. Above all, the European Member State of Greece had a hard time dealing with this emergency situation.
This enormous increase in European land area is being pursued by many experts with great concern. With the refugee crisis in Europe there is a danger that Europe could change dramatically and that this change could also influence parts of democracy.
However, it is important to emphasize that not Europe could change as a principle, but the populist reaction of the countries to the refugee crisis. So it is only understandable that many ask themselves whether our democracy is endangered by the refugee crisis.
Critics who are concerned about the fact that democracy in Europe and in the broader sense is threatened by the refugee situation are seen as dangers, especially the following problems.
The return of nationalist movements
Due to the increasing problem of the refugee situation and the unrest resulting from it, there is a danger that one can worry about the return of extreme groups and parties.
Terrorism within Europe
The last two years have been a clear sign that disguised with the legitimate refugees and as such, even religious extremists and terrorists are making it to Europe. The danger of terrorism on its own soil, according to the experts, is the greatest attack on democracy.
Like every extreme situation, the refugee crisis also has economic consequences for the countries concerned. Taking Greece as the first point of contact in the refugee stream, it is clear that caring for millions of people who are not citizens of their own country can be an extreme economic problem.
The refugee crisis is associated with very great political unrest and can lead to unrest within a country or between different Member States. There is also potential danger to the democratic values of Europe.
In theory, Europe should be strong enough to deal with such an enormous refugee crisis as today’s, with democratic values. The true threat to democracy in Europe is not a problem of the outside world and of the refugees themselves, but an internal European political problem. Only if the Member States are concentrating on their democratic values and opposing extreme groups, whether nationalist or terrorist , One will be able to ensure that democracy is not compromised.