Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Robin-H]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

To a degree, yes. If they’ve set their stall out and were honest (ha!) in campaigning. At a more local level, thatcher caused absolute destruction in the heavy industries in this country and I’d bet not one single miner, shipbuilder etc voted for her in 1983 but she told the electorate what her plans were and did them. If you lived in the south east or were fairly affluent in the 80s, you might have been alright - and that’s why thatcher won 3 elections with nice majorities. Yet swathes of the country had the heart ripped out of them and ironically they all voted leave as they still haven’t really recovered.

 

Was it more or less fair than a single half arsed referendum? Probably not but has more checks and balances, and more accountability. Leaving the EU is too complicated an issue to vote on with a referendum.

So something happening as a result of a vote where 36% of voters agree is fairer than happening after a vote where 52% of voters agree? Huh. 

[tinfoilhat]

33 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So something happening as a result of a vote where 36% of voters agree is fairer than happening after a vote where 52% of voters agree? Huh. 

Youre either making an argument for holding a referendum on major decisions (hows that working out so far) or electoral reform.

[Lockdoctor]

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

Wow - you must have a magic crystal ball - what are tonight's lottery numbers?

 

Or are you just making wild statements with no facts behind them?

 

I don't need a crystal ball to make a statement that if Remain had won the democratic 2016 EU referendum the result would have been instantly implemented.  The reason for the huge division in our country is that those who don't respect democracy still don't want the referendum result implemented over three years after the result.

[Robin-H]

10 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Youre either making an argument for holding a referendum on major decisions (hows that working out so far) or electoral reform.

I'm not really making an argument for anything, I'm just suggesting why some people might not be entirely correct in what they're saying. 

 

Both you and TCH have said that the parliamentary system is a better method than referendums for making major decisions. I'm pointing out why that is not necessarily the case. 

[tinfoilhat]

26 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I'm not really making an argument for anything, I'm just suggesting why some people might not be entirely correct in what they're saying. 

 

Both you and TCH have said that the parliamentary system is a better method than referendums for making major decisions. I'm pointing out why that is not necessarily the case. 

I'm not sure you are if I'm honest. You might be if we are talking naming fruit based confectionary but when we are talking about major complicated decisions I'd rather take that decision away from people who haven't got a ****ing clue. Our politicians - almost to a man - are liars and charlatans but at least they've some idea what's going on and can represent my interests better than someone who doesn't like straight bananas.

[Robin-H]

6 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I'm not sure you are if I'm honest. You might be if we are talking naming fruit based confectionary but when we are talking about major complicated decisions I'd rather take that decision away from people who haven't got a ****ing clue. Our politicians - almost to a man - are liars and charlatans but at least they've some idea what's going on and can represent my interests better than someone who doesn't like straight bananas.

But you're not taking that decision away from the people. You are just minimising the number of people who's views are represented. We live in a democracy, and therefore politicians are elected based on our views. If, as in my example, a party gained a majority in parliament based on promising to do something people agreed with, they would be in the position to do that thing.

 

The point I was making was that you need a much smaller proportion of the vote to win an election and gain a majority than you do to gain a majority in a referendum (which has to be over 50% of the votes). 

[Longcol]

9 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

The point I was making was that you need a much smaller proportion of the vote to win an election and gain a majority than you do to gain a majority in a referendum (which has to be over 50% of the votes). 

Which is hardly surprising as a referendum is on a single subject with two choices whereas a GE has multiple parties offering many manifesto promises.

[Robin-H]

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

Which is hardly surprising as a referendum is on a single subject with two choices whereas a GE has multiple parties offering many manifesto promises.

Precisely. Which is another reason why a referendum is a fairer way to determine people's views on big single issues that through an election. 

[Longcol]

2 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Precisely. Which is another reason why a referendum is a fairer way to determine people's views on big single issues that through an election. 

How do you draw the line at what is a "big issue"?  That will be many things to many people - and do we really want referenda on every single subject.

 

It also allows a small majority to foist their views on the rest of the country - how about 51% in favour of capital punishment / ending immigration / sending all immigrants home / abolition of opposition parties?

[El Cid]

7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Precisely. Which is another reason why a referendum is a fairer way to determine people's views on big single issues that through an election. 

You could ask people if they wanted to pay vehicle tax via the fuel or via vehicle excise duty, but its probably more practical to tax both. So to have a referendum that is advisory is probably better, then if its not actually practical to act on the result of the referendum, the Government can just ignore it, or re-run it.