As Dawkins said this morn.

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Those are examples of things which are covered in party manifestos, and we vote on those in a general election.

    Brexit is something more fundamental. It's about our relationship with the rest of the world.

    It's not really a question of whether we're informed enough. It's just the process.

    The Conservative party said in their manifesto that they were going to have a referendum on Brexit.
    They can put whatever they want in their manifesto, because it's their manifesto.
    They could say that they were going to have a "one-in one-out" immigration policy[1], they can say they want clowns on every street corner. It's their manifesto.
    It's up to the public to choose whether to vote for them.
    The Conservatives achieved a majority and therefore had a responsibility to offer the referendum that was in the manifesto.

    Don't hate the game. Hate the players.

    [1] Weirdly this was in the monster raving looney party 2010 manifesto before it was adopted by UKIP
  2. Jeepers, I go out for a walk and everyone starts trying to be reasonable.


    I guess we can cut to the nub, PJ - I honestly do not consider the EU Ref that took place (or the Scottish one for that matter) to have been an example of true democracy.

    Ok, it IS technically 'democracy' - let the majority make the decision. But for democracy to be effective and reliable and not open to abuse, there are a number of factors that need to be addressed before the plebs are entrusted to a vote.

    And I have to admit I am amongst what is almost certainly a minority that says there are some issues that simply should not be entrusted to a 'popular' vote. Issues that dramatically - and possibly destructive - affect our constitution, for example. (yes, I'm talking Brexit and Scottish Indy). Others are matters like the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    Why can't the public be entrusted with matters like this? Because they simply don't think the 'right' way - they are not rational, they are not concerned with evidence, but are driven by emotion. Their 'intuition', perhaps.

    I have to add that in many cases it is not necessarily altruistic emotion either, but pure self-interest.

    You only have to witness the reaction of many to the tragic Charlie Gard case. We are not a reasonable people.

    If that is what this thread is about, then ok - phew, we've cut to the chase.

    And we clearly disagree on this matter profoundly.
  3. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Hmm.... You leave, and then there's a reasonable discussion?

    Today DA learns about correlation.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  4. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    I think our government (no matter which party is in charge) perhaps think we're extremely gullible. Take the outcry over MP's expenses and second homes as an example.. Look at just how much their pay has now increased. A lot of MP's now have second homes which they rent out, at the same time as claiming up to £150 per night hotel expenses. Many of these second homes have already been paid for by us So they have an almost guaranteed second income, whilst living in the relative luxury of a 5 star hotel. I do wonder just how much MP's expenses have changed since the rules on second homes came into effect?
  5. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Not forgetting the previous Labour government before them that did indeed put the offer of a referendum in their manifesto. One which they then reneged on, costing them the GE whereby we had the Con/ Limp Dem coalition.
    At least the Conservatives have allowed us to have the referendum, mentioned in their election manifesto. (and still some are not happy)
  6. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Let's hope and pray, you never develop some life threatening illness . One for which there's a slim chance of treatment in another country and the NHS decides to delay any chance of that treatment by going down the route Charlie's parents had to endure.
    Remember the case of the lad who was offered the chance of proton beam therapy in Poland? The NHS didn't want him to have that either,,, and now look at him .
    Yes we may be unreasonable , but in the Ashya King case, who exactly was the "unreasonable" party?
  7. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  8. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I don't agree with your view of the Charlie Guard case, this article gives a good insight into the behaviour of the GOSH nurses/doctors, the parents, media and others in this case
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.

  9. Thats not really the point. I know it was in the manifesto, but that doesnt make it right.

    So if we ever vote in a party that promises a referendum on everything what is the purpose of an MP.

    My point is why were we deemed informed enough for brexit ? Clearly we were not.

    And that comment stands for whichever side you are/were on
  10. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    "Deemed informed"? Deemed by whom?

    The franchise doesn't depend on how informed you are.

    We don't test for how informed the electorate are before voting in general elections. We don't test before voting in council elections. How many people are really informed when they vote for their MEP? Their PCC?

    The country wanted a referendum. This was offered in a manifesto. People voted for that manifesto and therefore there was a referendum.

    "It was in the manifesto but that doesn't make it right"? Who are you to say what is right? Isn't what is "right" up to the citizens?
  11. I rest my case.
  12. I had read that article, and it says it very well indeed.
  13. Oh be quiet.
    btiw2 likes this.
  14. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Yep,, so who were the unreasonable party in the Ashya King case DA? Surely not his parents?
  15. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    I'm not saying that we should copy it but Switzerland's system seems to work for them. They seem capable of having referenda on 'big' issues.

    People don't think the 'right' way? :rolleyes: I guess that's one opinion ;)

    So if we take these two things together, Switzerland managing to have a much more democratic system than Britain with a populace that seems able to make important decisions, where does the difference lie? In the genetic codes of Brits and Swiss? In the relative abilities of each country's citizens to think rationally and act accordingly? Or is it more a factor of the relative 'cultures' and the relative 'systems'? Or summat else?

  16. The difference being when anybody votes for their MP or councillor etc they are voting for somebody who supposedly has their best interests at heart, and has the time, knowledge and resources to make such decisions.

    A referendum on the other hand is a vote, mostlyby gut feelings on a specific subject that they have little or no information on and as such any result is not rrally based on the country or the citizens best interests, but on which side scared them the least or over hyped what could happen.

    I know it was a manifesto promise, but that doesnt make it right.

    Why, tell me, do we have MP's, if not to make such decisions. Any citizen has the right to ask their MP how they will vote in such an event and can register support or protest.

    It was too important an event to try and claimpolitical support by promising the referendum.

    I want a referendum on other things too if we dont need these MP's
  17. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Labour lost a general election simply because they broke an election manifesto promise Jack, dunna forget that
    Of course we have politicians, who we vote for on what (lies) they tell us before getting elected, not to just make decisions themselves. What's wrong with politics in the HoP is the party whip system. All MP's should have a free vote on whatever they're deciding. The politician would of course be free to seek the view of his/her constituents , before deciding which way he/she would vote. I reckon that's the future of politics,,, and in this day and age, the politician doesn't even need to go back to the constituency, it could all be done via the internet. ;);)
  18. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Referenda are for the big decisions a country faces, the ones that change the nature of our country: leaving the EU, breaking the union, changing the voting system, abolition of the monarchy, those sorts of things.

    You can't lump these big items into a general election manifesto, because when the government came to enact them there'd be the danger that people would say "hang on, I was voting for you because of the NHS/education/tax policy - not THAT bit!".

    So you get a pure question on that big issue, not attached to party lines (although clearly parties tends to campaign one way or the other), to determine the will of the British people.

    Referenda are disruptive and expensive, but for the big questions they're the best way of getting an answer.

    That's why they exist.
    Because if we can't ever ask the kingdom the question about how it should change, then big changes will either never be enacted or never have legitimacy.

    So when should we hold referenda? Who decides when are the people should be asked?

    Should DA decide? That can't be right. Nobody in the country is going to think that's right (except maybe you and DA).
    Should Richard Dawkins decide when we are allowed to hold referenda? Tempting, but there are a lot of people who disagree with Richard Dawkins - we need legitimacy.
    What about the Archbishop of Canterbury? The people who weren't happy with Richard Dawkins would probably like this, but none of those who previously wanted Richard Dawkins.
    David Beckham? Nah, we probably need someone who is at least familiar with politics and running a country.
    It's going to have to be someone that the citizens have agreed to. We need to ask them.
    We need the citizens to vote on who has the right to call referenda.
    Oh wait. That just happened.
    longboat likes this.
  19. The big desicions a country makes, ok.

    They dont get much bigger than what political party gets in surely.

    If the referenda was a big desicion, then why wasnt it discussed more in depth about what exactly was involved and its implications ( I mean that for either side). As it stands it was just a way of the Tories getting support to get into power.

    The country had a referendum on a big decision? Ok, tell me what the result means ?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice