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

[Lockdoctor 10]

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

We could elect representatives to a parliament and let them make decisions on our behalf. 

 

The advantage of that  system is that complex and linked decisions won’t get taken in isolation.

 

If you don’t like the way your representative represents you, we could devise a  system for making the available for replacement. Say, every five years.

That doesn't answer the question about who should decide the future of whether Scotland becomes independent.  The Westminster Parliament are most unlikely to ever to make a decision to let Scotland become independent.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So how do you think big decisions, such as staying in or leaving the EU, or (in Scotland's case) independence, or the many examples of foreign referendums (ending apartheid etc) be decided? 

The parliamentary system works fine without the need for referendums.

 

By the way, I like your concept of using a referendum to end apartheid. “All those in favour of ending apartheid, raise their hand.” After a majority of hands go up the question is asked again. “All those in favour of ending apartheid raise their hand and could all the black people in the room keep their hands down”.

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

We could elect representatives to a parliament and let them make decisions on our behalf. 

 

The advantage of that  system is that complex and linked decisions won’t get taken in isolation.

 

If you don’t like the way your representative represents you, we could devise a  system for making the available for replacement. Say, every five years.

OK, so let's say there's a big issue affecting the country on which the population have differing views - let's say that opal fruits should be renamed to starburst.. (I know that's not the sort of thing there would be a referendum on, I'm just choosing something stupid so people don't get hung up on it). 

 

The majority of Tory's are totally against this, some backbenchers disagree, but they write into their manifesto that if elected they will ensure the Opal Fruits stay as Opal Fruits. Lib Dems on the other hand want change and prefer the more dynamic name. They write in their manifesto that if they are elected, they'll change the name of Opal Fruits to Starburst. Labour don't give a toss, and don't even mention it in their manifesto. 

 

Lets say the Lib Dems win the election, with 36% of the vote, and so duly change the name to Starburst... 

 

How is that better than a referendum on the issue? Firstly, the decision is one of hundreds of decisions that people will be making about who to vote for. Some people may have voted Lib Dem because of their other policies, and may be totally against changing the name. It's impossible to tell. Secondly, Lib Dems won the election, but winners of elections very very rarely actually get a majority of the votes. Certainly less than in a yes or no referendum. How is that any fairer? 

4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The parliamentary system works fine without the need for referendums.

 

By the way, I like your concept of using a referendum to end apartheid. “All those in favour of ending apartheid, raise their hand.” After a majority of hands go up the question is asked again. “All those in favour of ending apartheid raise their hand and could all the black people in the room keep their hands down”.

See my post above as to why that's not true. 

 

And it wasn't my concept to use to a referendum to end apartheid. It was South Africa's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_South_African_apartheid_referendum

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

OK, so let's say there's a big issue affecting the country on which the population have differing views - let's say that opal fruits should be renamed to starburst.. (I know that's not the sort of thing there would be a referendum on, I'm just choosing something stupid so people don't get hung up on it). 

 

The majority of Tory's are totally against this, some backbenchers disagree, but they write into their manifesto that if elected they will ensure the Opal Fruits stay as Opal Fruits. Lib Dems on the other hand want change and prefer the more dynamic name. They write in their manifesto that if they are elected, they'll change the name of Opal Fruits to Starburst. Labour don't give a toss, and don't even mention it in their manifesto. 

 

Lets say the Lib Dems win the election, with 36% of the vote, and so duly change the name to Starburst... 

 

How is that better than a referendum on the issue? Firstly, the decision is one of hundreds of decisions that people will be making about who to vote for. Some people may have voted Lib Dem because of their other policies, and may be totally against changing the name. It's impossible to tell. Secondly, Lib Dems won the election, but winners of elections very very rarely actually get a majority of the votes. Certainly less than in a yes or no referendum. How is that any fairer? 

See my post above as to why that's not true. 

 

And it wasn't my concept to use to a referendum to end apartheid. It was South Africa's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_South_African_apartheid_referendum

I know you didn't want focus on the opal fruits thing, but this referendum has highlighted how a poorly worded referendum can really bite you further down the line. 

 

If your example is trying to reflect the situation we are in now the ballot paper would read tick box 1 for opal fruits to stay the same, box 2 to call them something different.  Three years after  the result we've got people wanting to call them Maltesers.

 

The EU was both  far too complex and far too simple a subject to have a refetendum about.

[nightrider 13]

7 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I know you didn't want focus on the opal fruits thing, but this referendum has highlighted how a poorly worded referendum can really bite you further down the line. 

 

If your example is trying to reflect the situation we are in now the ballot paper would read tick box 1 for opal fruits to stay the same, box 2 to call them something different.  Three years after  the result we've got people wanting to call them Maltesers.

 

The EU was both  far too complex and far too simple a subject to have a refetendum about.

Exactly. Some countries do use referendums extensively (e.g. Switzerland and California, and yes I know the latter is not a country).

 

But a poorly worded question is not very useful and creates a big mess. Also IIRC in California they had multiple referenda which resulted in reduced taxes and mandates to spend more money on public services. This ended up causing big financial problems for the state, because of course people thought about the questions in isolation and not about how things connect together. So there are other ways referenda create a mess.

 

OTOH as far as I know the referendum system works reasonably well in Switzerland (though I know of a recent case to reduce immigration, which came in tension with other commitments like having a favourable relationship with the EU - the EU said something along the lines of why should we give you anything worthwhile if you won't let our citizens into your country)

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

I know you didn't want focus on the opal fruits thing, but this referendum has highlighted how a poorly worded referendum can really bite you further down the line. 

It’s more than just wording though. A threshold needs to be set to ensure that any change is supported during the length of its implementation.

 

The most ridiculous thing about the 2016 referendum was that the day before the vote it was too close to call, the day of the vote there was one percentage point in favour of leave, the day after the vote this had reversed to one to two percentage points in favour of remain, so the government embarks on a course which will take ten to fifteen years to complete which has no popular support from day one.

 

People constantly point out that in 1975 there was no popular majority for staying in the EU but what was important is that the pro-EEC vote was more than double that of the anti-EEC vote and remained that way for decades.

[Robin-H 11]

Just now, Top Cats Hat said:

It’s more than just wording though. A threshold needs to be set to ensure that any change is supported during the length of its implementation.

 

The most ridiculous thing about the 2016 referendum was that the day before the vote it was too close to call, the day of the vote there was one percentage point in favour of leave, the day after the vote this had reversed to one to two percentage points in favour of remain, so the government embarks on a course which will take ten to fifteen years to complete which has no popular support from day one.

 

People constantly point out that in 1975 there was no popular majority for staying in the EU but what was important is that the pro-EEC vote was more than double that of the anti-EEC vote and remained that way for decades.

But you said we shouldn't have referendums at all? 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Just now, Robin-H said:

But you said we shouldn't have referendums at all? 

 

We shouldn’t.

[Robin-H 11]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We shouldn’t.

Which takes me back to the question I asked before. How should big decisions be decided? 

[Lockdoctor 10]

4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It’s more than just wording though. A threshold needs to be set to ensure that any change is supported during the length of its implementation.

 

The most ridiculous thing about the 2016 referendum was that the day before the vote it was too close to call, the day of the vote there was one percentage point in favour of leave, the day after the vote this had reversed to one to two percentage points in favour of remain, so the government embarks on a course which will take ten to fifteen years to complete which has no popular support from day one.

 

People constantly point out that in 1975 there was no popular majority for staying in the EU but what was important is that the pro-EEC vote was more than double that of the anti-EEC vote and remained that way for decades.

You're being beyond ridiculous by comparing and giving equal importance to opinions polls conducted the day before and the day after 23rd June 2016 when over 35 million voters turned out to physically place a tick in a box on a ballot paper.  

17 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I know you didn't want focus on the opal fruits thing, but this referendum has highlighted how a poorly worded referendum can really bite you further down the line. 

 

If your example is trying to reflect the situation we are in now the ballot paper would read tick box 1 for opal fruits to stay the same, box 2 to call them something different.  Three years after  the result we've got people wanting to call them Maltesers.

 

The EU was both  far too complex and far too simple a subject to have a refetendum about.

It wouldn't have been if Remain had won.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

13 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You're being beyond ridiculous by comparing and giving equal importance to opinions polls conducted the day before and the day after 23rd June 2016 

You do know what an opinion poll is, don’t you? 🙄

[Lockdoctor 10]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You do know what an opinion poll is, don’t you? 🙄

Yes, I do know what an opinion poll is and I also know an opinion poll is not the same as a referendum where voters go and place  a tick in a box on a ballot paper.