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

[tinfoilhat 11]

57 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I think they should be used for constitutional changes (which is the case now I believe).

 

Given that parties can get a majority in Parliament with a small share of the vote (Cameron got a slim majority in 2015 with 37% of the vote), making constitutional changes through referenda ensures that a larger proportion of the population has to agree for them to be enacted. 

No, still disagree I'm afraid. The population is full of idiots, i know because I am one. There are hundreds of pros/cons, technical bits and bobs that have a real impact on everybody's daily lives. I know a tiny fraction of it. My vote is worth the same who knows loads about the ramifications of leaving the EU - there aren't many of those. Equally, my vote is worth the same as somebody who is voting leave to send the Muslims home. There are quite a few of those.

 

It needs to be a referendum on something more emotive rather than technical.

[Longcol 600]

8 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

No, still disagree I'm afraid. The population is full of idiots, i know because I am one. There are hundreds of pros/cons, technical bits and bobs that have a real impact on everybody's daily lives. I know a tiny fraction of it. My vote is worth the same who knows loads about the ramifications of leaving the EU - there aren't many of those. Equally, my vote is worth the same as somebody who is voting leave to send the Muslims home. There are quite a few of those.

 

It needs to be a referendum on something more emotive rather than technical.

If we had referenda on emotive issues then it could be we'd have one on  expelling immigrants.  I'd rather we didn't have referenda as the ability to abuse them is too great. 

 

The EU referendum wasn't to settle a constitutional / technical matter, it was a case of Cameron trying tio silence the Tory eurosceptics

Edited September 1, 2019 by Longcol

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

If we had referenda on emotive issues then it could be we'd have one on  expelling immigrants.  I'd rather we didn't have referenda as the ability to abuse them is too great. 

 

The EU referendum wasn't to settle a constitutional / technical matter, it was a case of Cameron trying tio silence the Tory eurosceptics

Given the fact we're in an era where not only are our politicians lying with impunity they're now aided and abetted by sections of the press that lie for them, I'd reduce the number of votes, not increase them!

[Robin-H 11]

31 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Population or electorate?

 

And without a written constitution, how do we decide what's constitutional?

Electorate, but we have no other practical means of assessing the view of the country other than through the electorate. 

 

Our constitution may not be written in a singe document, but is made up of centuries of law and statute. Whether a change amounts to a constitutional change will be determined by the the law and parliament. 

[Robin-H 11]

22 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

No, still disagree I'm afraid. The population is full of idiots, i know because I am one. There are hundreds of pros/cons, technical bits and bobs that have a real impact on everybody's daily lives. I know a tiny fraction of it. My vote is worth the same who knows loads about the ramifications of leaving the EU - there aren't many of those. Equally, my vote is worth the same as somebody who is voting leave to send the Muslims home. There are quite a few of those.

 

It needs to be a referendum on something more emotive rather than technical.

But that is an argument against having a democracy full stop, not just against referendums. The only difference with a referendum and a normal election, other than the simplification of the choice at hand (usually a yes or no rather than the intricacies of multiple parties manifestos) are the numbers involved to get a majority. 

 

If you don't think referendums should be held because the population is too stupid, then that would be even more true of elections when a smaller proportion of the electorate gets to put a party in power that could enact the exact same policies that we'd otherwise have to have had a referendum about. 

[Longcol 600]

9 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Electorate, but we have no other practical means of assessing the view of the country other than through the electorate. 

 

Our constitution may not be written in a singe document, but is made up of centuries of law and statute. Whether a change amounts to a constitutional change will be determined by the the law and parliament. 

Boris appears to be have an ability to singe documents he doesn't like. Parliament or the government to decide on a constitutional change - and what safeguards are needed to stop an "elected dictatorship"?

 

Doesn't appear to be anything to stop a government with a small majority (if any) playing fast and loose with the "constitution" for partisan reasons.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Longcol

[Dromedary 166]

2 hours ago, Litotes said:

Now we have Mr Gove saying that he "won't commit to abide by law to block no deal"

 

" Tory minister Michael Gove has refused to say whether the government would abide by legislation designed to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal. "

When was that legislation passed?

 

If it is anything like parliaments last attempt then all that would happen is that it will force Boris to try and renegotiate another extension to stop us leaving on 31st October. Now, by all accounts the EU will not entertain another extension as its already clear that parliament still dont know how to proceed forward after 3 years of trying. The only way to stop the deadline is for parliament to revoke A50 or accept the deal, and parliament has already show its reluctance to do either. All this fuss from pro remainers about proroguing parliament is just a bit of slight of hand by mischief makers and really shows them up to be numpties.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Dromedary

[Obelix 11]

I'd agree that proroguing Parliament because you are scared of it means that the Govt are numpties. We can agree on that.

 

[Dromedary 166]

2 minutes ago, Obelix said:

I'd agree that proroguing Parliament because you are scared of it means that the Govt are numpties. We can agree on that.

Just amended the post to read better... 

[tinfoilhat 11]

14 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

But that is an argument against having a democracy full stop, not just against referendums. The only difference with a referendum and a normal election, other than the simplification of the choice at hand (usually a yes or no rather than the intricacies of multiple parties manifestos) are the numbers involved to get a majority. 

 

If you don't think referendums should be held because the population is too stupid, then that would be even more true of elections when a smaller proportion of the electorate gets to put a party in power that could enact the exact same policies that we'd otherwise have to have had a referendum about. 

But elections can reverse things pretty quickly - once Cameron ditched the Lib Dem’s they enacted most of the stuff clegg stopped. Leaving the EU - that’s big and permanent. 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by tinfoilhat

[Dromedary 166]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

But elections can reverse things pretty quickly - once Cameron ditched the Lib Dem’s they enacted most of the stuff clegg stopped. Leaving the EU - that’s big and permanent. 

One of the reasons it went to a referendum as its a constitution change.

[Longcol 600]

1 minute ago, Dromedary said:

One of the reasons it went to a referendum as its a constitution change.

What constitution?

 

How do you define what is a constitutional change without a constitution?

Edited September 1, 2019 by Longcol