"Russia has been working hard to create division in the West and its been successful in the UK."
I think this translates roughly as, "A referendum and an election didn't go the way I like, two facts with which I can't cope because according to all the theory I've ever understood, once the masses understand what people like me are on about they will come flocking to our banner in their millions. Because I can't cope I need an explanation and the Russian bear provides me with one."
Now let's take a slightly more grown up, slightly less hysterical view of current affairs.
Division i.e. difference of opinion is a natural part of human affairs. People are heterogenous and so societies inevitably exhibit a degree of pluralism. The political systems of societies have to be able to cope with that pluralism. If you look at history, there seem to be two broad approaches of coping strategy:
a. Stamp on pluralism. Absolute monarchies, dictatorships, socialism, fascism. They all fail in the end. That doesn't mean that they don't reappear or try to reappear. Dictatorships and socialism seem to be the most politically vampiric i.e. undead but very bad for humanity as they will keep trying to make comebacks.
b. Embrace the fact of pluralism and have a system that can cope with it. The best system which so far has emerged to this end is democracy, bringing with it as it does freedom of speech, opinion etc. etc.
Don't like the clowns who are governing you? Not a problem: persuade other people of your stand point and if you can do that well enough, at the next election they are on their way out. Thus we can do away with the idea of revolution (violent or otherwise) because we can change governments without having to pick up rifles.
Democracy makes few demands of a nation state: governments must submit themselves to the electorate after a certain period in office and often before that period is up. Elections must be conducted in an uncorrupt way and the ballot must be secret. All must abide by the result of the election.
You, RobinBHM, clearly cannot manage the latter which in my opinion makes you a bit of a disgrace and I'm mightily glad that it is highly unlikely that people like you will ever get the upper hand in our country. And the reason that you won't get the upper hand is that democracy has become so deeply rooted in the UK that the people can be more or less said to have an instinct for it. That said, it is famously a delicate flower and it must be protected and if necessary fought for. "All that is necessary for evil to prosper is that men of good will do nothing."
I think this translates roughly as, "A referendum and an election didn't go the way I like, two facts with which I can't cope because according to all the theory I've ever understood, once the masses understand what people like me are on about they will come flocking to our banner in their millions. Because I can't cope I need an explanation and the Russian bear provides me with one."
Now let's take a slightly more grown up, slightly less hysterical view of current affairs.
Division i.e. difference of opinion is a natural part of human affairs. People are heterogenous and so societies inevitably exhibit a degree of pluralism. The political systems of societies have to be able to cope with that pluralism. If you look at history, there seem to be two broad approaches of coping strategy:
a. Stamp on pluralism. Absolute monarchies, dictatorships, socialism, fascism. They all fail in the end. That doesn't mean that they don't reappear or try to reappear. Dictatorships and socialism seem to be the most politically vampiric i.e. undead but very bad for humanity as they will keep trying to make comebacks.
b. Embrace the fact of pluralism and have a system that can cope with it. The best system which so far has emerged to this end is democracy, bringing with it as it does freedom of speech, opinion etc. etc.
Don't like the clowns who are governing you? Not a problem: persuade other people of your stand point and if you can do that well enough, at the next election they are on their way out. Thus we can do away with the idea of revolution (violent or otherwise) because we can change governments without having to pick up rifles.
Democracy makes few demands of a nation state: governments must submit themselves to the electorate after a certain period in office and often before that period is up. Elections must be conducted in an uncorrupt way and the ballot must be secret. All must abide by the result of the election.
You, RobinBHM, clearly cannot manage the latter which in my opinion makes you a bit of a disgrace and I'm mightily glad that it is highly unlikely that people like you will ever get the upper hand in our country. And the reason that you won't get the upper hand is that democracy has become so deeply rooted in the UK that the people can be more or less said to have an instinct for it. That said, it is famously a delicate flower and it must be protected and if necessary fought for. "All that is necessary for evil to prosper is that men of good will do nothing."
