Why is it necessary to be an arrogant bully to be in politics?

It's not. Joe Biden has served his country for 44 years and is nice as pie.

You don't have to be an arrogant, self aggrandized idiot like Trump to be in politics........but it just seems there's more of those types these days.

John McCain was a calm, peaceful man. Ted Kennedy also quietly filled his role, brokering many deals and passing legislation without throwing himself parades.

This old school knew how to cross the aisle, compromise and get the deal done.

That class seems to be lost now...........Biden might be the last of the old school left.

the racist bullies, like Trump, no one needs or wants.

One of the countless reasons for supporting Bernie here in America is that it will be much more difficult for the neo-Nazi right to cynically smear him as an anti-Semite, although of course they're trying.

It's not, but those who are trying to force a bad idea do that to try to get their way. .

You overlook that no referendum has legal force. It merely "refers" the electorate's view to the relevant legislature. As it's not legally binding, that view can be ignored with impunity. The "Brexit" (I hate that asinine word) vote was flawed in two ways:

1. It should have been framed as a plebiscite, which IS legally binding, although it only compels the given legislature to hold its own vote.

2. It shouldn't have been settled by a mere majority. A decision of such importance matters greatly to those who aren't currently of voting age, & even those not currently citizens of the jurisdiction, but who will be (e.g.; future children). It should have require a "supermajority."

In the U.S., for a constitutional amendment to be adopted, it needs the consent not simply of a majority (26) of states. It needs the consent of 75% (currently 38) of the states.

In Canada, most amendments need the consent of at least of the 10 provinces (70%), & these must have a total of at least 50% of Canada's population. So, if Ontario & Quebec don't consent, the amendment fails, as they have about 60% of the population. Some amendments (e.g.; to cease to be a constitutional monarchy) need unanimous consent.

Had the U.K. held a plebiscite that required a supermajority, & if it got that supermajority, then you wouldn't be in this mess today. The people would have given a clear "Yes", & Parliament would have no reason to bicker over the matter. It could turn itself fully to effecting the separation.

Or, if it didn't get the supermajority, you also wouldn't have a mess. The issue would have been put to the people, who clearly said "No", & the issue would be over & done with. You could forget it & get on with life.

As it is, right now you're torn. The old geezers & fogies who largely voted "Leave" grimace & grumble, gnashing their teeth for the "return" of a "Great" Britain that was never truly great, save in their clouded minds. The young & those to come resent & resist, certain that their future will be much diminished by what they regard as a mad folly that will severely damage their economic future. They'll feel these pains for years after those who supported it are dead. It may well lead to the dismemberment of the Union.

To paraphrase Woody Allen: You stand at a crossroads: One path leads to despair, the other to destruction. You must hope that you make the right choice.

I really want to answer this question, then I don’t really get what you mean

Bad and useless troll, huh? Wow, it’s not my fault that you were bred as a sensitive swine

The UK, along with the rest of the Western world is being transformed into a police state. With that kind of infrastructure why should the elites care about the democratic will of the majority?

The UK has been plunged into a "political nervous breakdown" over Brexit with senior politicians failing to command the respect that prime ministers' once held, a former MI6 chief has said.