Krueger's Korner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

I wasn't advocating ONLY once. Just saying EVEN once would be nice! Whatever gives you the idea that we would be forced into repeated, frequent referendums? The track record is not exactly impressive.

 

Sorry to butt in on your chat, and you can ignore what I'm writing if you like.

Modern technology has long given people the ability to decide by referendum how they want their world to be. We don't really need politicians to represent us, we need experts in the field to help us come to a valid decision, after formulating a valid question to have a referendum over. Plus we need civil servants to carry out the policy we formulate. Without getting bogged down in the detail, referenda can fail simply because the questions aren't clearly laid out. And that's been done on purpose before.
The simple answer is that people need to commit to a policy for X amount of years - say 30-35 years for a question over European integration, because that is half a lifetime, and because it allows a child to become an adult and help to change a direction. I'm only suggesting a scenario here, of course.

This scenario won't ever happen because the people aren't allowed to lead for themselves. The great General Public are intelligent, according to our politicians, but actually they are woefully uninformed, some are disinterested through being disenfranchised or other reason, and some are just plain stupid.

Anyway, I wanted to write this down. Carry on.

 

Good post.

1975 referendum - 40 years ago. Carried out under a false premise, after which the main protagonists admitted they lied to ensure we voted the "right way" Tony Benn saw through it!

Maybe 40 years is too soon for some?

 

Woo politics debate

If we had an EU referendum, at least 40% would vote to leave. It's a fairly divided issue; it's not like a referendum on the death penalty where at least 80% wouldn't support it.

There doesn't need to be regular referendums. Once every generation, maybe - the Liberal Democrats won't say that they want a referendum on changing the voting system in their next manifesto. Both UKIP and the Tories, who will make up 50% of the vote in 2015, both are eurosceptic. Both parties want to renegotiate/leave. There is definite demand for a say.

It's patronising to deny people to get involved in direct democracy. I bet the referendums, if there is one, will not get a very high turnout. There needs to be far more information on both sides before a referendum.

On the subject of Scottish independence, I don't understand why they want to leave the UK to get more powers AND then join the EU? They'd gain more powers through leaving the EU than leaving the UK! It makes no sense to leave - no shared currency, no longer a world power and therefore will be unable to get a good trade deal with the EU regardless of whether they are allowed in, which they wouldn't be for a while.

The majority of Ireland voted for independence, yet we gave about 70% of it independence, the Catholic area who wanted to leave , and kept the small, Protestant area who wanted to stay. It's too late now, but if we gave the whole country independence it could have stopped a lot of bloodshed from the IRA.

Wales are harmless. A small few will want independence, but they haven't even got a parliament so are far away from having an independence referendum.

 

Hang on, some people on the left didn't support the EU/EEC?! The media tells me it's just the right

 

I'm not saying we'd be forced, I'm saying it would be unfair and hypocritical not to have further referendums if we're going to have one. This upcoming referendum only benefits people who want out, because people who want in can get their way by not having a referendum at all. If you want to give people a chance to vote us out of the EU, then it's only fair that, at some point down the line after we've chosen to leave, people who would like us to be in the EU are given a chance to vote on joining.

Earlier you were accusing Pie of being anti democratic for the sake of getting his own way. Well you'd be guilty of the same thing if you allowed a referendum to vote us out of the EU but then didn't allow further referendums to vote us back in. If the government is going to bend to pressure for a referendum on this occasion, it'd be hypocritical if it were to not bend to pressure for referendums on later occasions. That's what I mean by setting a precedent. And as I've already said, once you show people that it is possible to press for a referendum, they will start trying to press for one on every issue.

 

No, mbecause I'd moved house and wasn't on the electoral role

To give you an answer on what I think you are asking, I have voted for more than one party. My mind is flexible enough to adjust my views, unlike some. I have also not voted before because I haven't liked my options in terms of their policies or trust that they are really doing things for my/our benefit rather than their own career.

My view on any referendum is that asking the adult population of this country to make an influencing decision scares the crap out if me. Why?

More people buy the sun/mirror/mail than other papers. Tells me something.
Soap operas are some of the most watched programs on television.

Finally, my most important reason for not having a referendum: ME! WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT ME TO VOTE YES OR NO ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS THAT EFFECT EVERYONE. I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THESE SUBJECTS. I HAVE AN OPINION SURE BUT THAT OPINION IS EFFECTED BY WHAT I READ, BY WHAT I AM TOLD AND BY WHAT I SEE. ANYONE COULD INFLUENCE ME BY HOW THEY DELIVER THAT MESSAGE TO ME.

Now I am fairly well rounded and educated, but come and talk to me about plastics, this is what I do. Having been involved in football I think I can take a fairly good decision in that, but all the multitude of things that effect running a country? No, I am not the one to do that.

 

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. An EU referendum is one in which a lot of the population would vote to leave. However, leaving the EU is a manfestly poor decision for the UK. Deciding something democratically is not always the best choice.

 

"I'm saying it would be unfair and hypocritical not to have further referendums if we're going to have one."

We had one in 1975 (under false pretences)....so by your argument, we SHOULD have another. As others have said, the issue could be debated every generation (30 years or so) THIS one is overdue.



"This upcoming referendum only benefits people who want out, because people who want in can get their way by not having a referendum at all."

Well, yeah! Like the one to enter the EEC only benefited those who wanted to join, because people who wanted out could have their own way by having no referendum.Or the Scots... only benefits those wanting to leave the Union.

"If you want to give people a chance to vote us out of the EU, then it's only fair that, at some point down the line after we've chosen to leave, people who would like us to be in the EU are given a chance to vote on joining."

Ask the people once every 30 years or so. Not quite the revolving door of election frequency you were hinting at.

"Earlier you were accusing Pie of being anti democratic for the sake of getting his own way. Well you'd be guilty of the same thing if you allowed a referendum to vote us out of the EU but then didn't allow further referendums to vote us back in."

Not relevant. See above.

 

Why?

So people need protecting from themselves and it's not always best to use democracy. Just as long as you are happy with my choice of leader and policy, we'll all agree on that one!

 

"asking the adult population of this country to make an influencing decision scares the crap out if me."

Scares the crap out of me every General Election.

It's a problem with our education system and media. Maybe voting should only be allowed for intelligent people? Or abolished?

 

[video=youtube;FopyRHHlt3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

This still going on?

 

That's how it should be. There are so many sheep who vote Labour thinking they represent the working class, which they don't. People forget that the government, even the bad ones, do a fair bit of good stuff , but it's 'cool' to criticise the government. People automatically said Cameron was a toff and didn't care about the poor, but Tony Benn, son of a Lord, is a man of the people?! If you asked someone what Cameron's done to annoy them directly, they won't be able to think of anything, unless he's taken away some of their benefits. How dare someone try and stop people living a luxury for doing nothing! We're only 1.4 trillion in debt...

 

Even Laymans know that the bankers bonus issue isn't right. I think a lot of the "common people" would cite that as a reason for not liking Cameron, the ****er.

 

Good to see you have a sense of humour. Then again, we could already tell that.

 

I have major issue with you having a dig at benefits. The people the cuts are effecting aren't the ones living in massive houses etc. It's effecting the people that can't afford to eat or even to have heating. The way the cuts have been introduced is disgusting, the wealthy just carry on making a **** load while the poor get poorer. It's a actual fact that most of the people that are struggling now and recieving benefits are the low income working families.

Food banks are being used so much the government actually made it's own food bank chain. They deem it as not being linked to benefits tho.(so it keeps the people on benefits total lower then it should be)

 

Christ this is tedious.

 

I didn't want to get involved until the benefits **** started.

 

I think you need to think more carefully about what the ramifications would be if we were to jump in and out of the EU, even if it was just once every 30 years. There are millions of people from member states who have moved here under the provision of freedom of movement, and likewise millions of Brits abroad. To "pull up the drawbridge", as Clegg puts it, would cause serious complications for these people, especially if they like to frequently move themselves or their families back and forth. To move the drawbridge up and down every 30 years just makes these sorts of problems ridiculous.

And that's nothing compared to the complications it would cause for trade. Many international corporations who rely on the customs union, free movement of capital and the availability of immigrant workers would pull out of the UK, or at least cut back. Farage says that would be fine, and maybe he's right, but then imagine a scenario in which we're in the EU for 30 years, out for 30 years, in for 30 years, etc. Factory goes up, factory goes down, factory goes up, factory goes down.

And I'm not done. As members of the EU we are party to a number of long-term projects which are more than a 30 year commitment: energy policies, carbon emission policies, a space programme, and the list goes on for a while. Leaving aside the undeniable argument that EU membership has vastly improved our environmental situation, if we were to leave the EU we would not be bound by the directives which say a member state has to have reduced emissions by a certain amount by a certain date, or various other targets. If we were to not keep up with the EU's targets, we wouldn't even be allowed back in. Remember, even if we were to have a referendum in 30 years time and vote to rejoin the EU, we'd still have to apply - a process which can take years in itself. What with our new doctrine of voting on membership every 30 years, and the prospect of deviating from EU objectives and uprooting people and businesses every time we leave, they simply wouldn't have us.

The EU is a permanent commitment. You're in or you're out. If a government ever comes to the conclusion that we'd be economically better off outside the EU, they can pull us out with no referendum. No way am I leaving such a vital, probably permanent, decision up to a bunch of people who don't have the slightest clue what membership actually involves. And that, by the way, is an argument you're yet to counter.