Britain: the difference between political stability and a permanent state of war is that people tend to accept the outcome of elections and referendums

Britain's Brexit: the difference between political stability and a permanent state of war is that people tend to accept the outcome of elections and referendums

When you look at certain African countries you understand that for political stability to exist people need to accept the outcome of elections and referendums. As long as the voting process is fair and transparent, whether voters like or dislike the outcome of the public consultation, life goes on peacefully under the rule of law. When soon after the election or referendum, the population refuses to accept the outcome of the public consultation there will be riots possibly leading to civil war and assassinations and an entire country will be in a constant state of flux.

Many people in the United Kingdom that blatantly refuse to accept the outcome of the Referendum on EU Membership should take a closer look at what happens when the outcome of a perfectly legal public consultation is rejected or ignored by those who are supposed to respect the outcome of a public consultation. Do they want Britain to be in a permanent state of flux? Do they want widespread violence in the United Kingdom?

If as reported, the Army is sent to deal with the civilian population, what do you think the consequences will be if as presumed people get injured or even killed on British streets? Would this be conducive to political stability and peaceful coexistence?

For a very long time, there hasn't been a civil war in Britain but people should be reminded that the fact that there hasn't been a civil war does not mean that there couldn't be civil war in the not so distant future. London is not Britain. Scotland is not Britain. They are parts of Britain. This is not about what London wants or Scotland wants. It is about what Britain as a whole wants.