Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Lulz. Surely you jest.
Ironing.
Ironing.
Why? I have never voted for nor supported Labour until late last year. You need to stop with this false dichotomy that everyone who criticises the Tories is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour fanatic.
That wasn't what I meant (at all), but let's not do the whole Labour are shit thing again. Look, they just are, self-evidently and empirically (and even, pretty much, by their own admission and various apologies). End of.
So what did you mean then?
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
If we won't agree on the first part, that it's too complex (which is fine, happy to disagree) at least we seem to on the latter - that there is no unbiased media on which people can rely.
Edit: @Cavey
Edit: @Cavey
Indeed (
), but the latter can readily fixed, and should be fixed. We do not need to throw the democratic baby out with the bathwater to do this.How do we do that? Neither the politicians nor the media want an educated populous making their own decisions. So what now?
I don't agree that's the case, but even if it were - denying people any vote or power because it's all too complicated for them, they could never understand etc. isn't the solution. You need to think about where that road leads.
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
If we won't agree on the first part, that it's too complex (which is fine, happy to disagree) at least we seem to on the latter - that there is no unbiased media on which people can rely.
Edit: @Cavey
Edit: @Cavey
Indeed (
), but the latter can readily fixed, and should be fixed. We do not need to throw the democratic baby out with the bathwater to do this.How do we do that? Neither the politicians nor the media want an educated populous making their own decisions. So what now?
I don't agree that's the case, but even if it were - denying people any vote or power because it's all too complicated for them, they could never understand etc. isn't the solution. You need to think about where that road leads.
Full Communism *hammer and sickle emoji*
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Lulz. Surely you jest.
Ironing.
Ironing.
Why? I have never voted for nor supported Labour until late last year. You need to stop with this false dichotomy that everyone who criticises the Tories is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour fanatic.
That wasn't what I meant (at all), but let's not do the whole Labour are shit thing again. Look, they just are, self-evidently and empirically (and even, pretty much, by their own admission and various apologies). End of.
So what did you mean then?
Sigh. Really, man?
In a nutshell: it's ironic to call out the Tories about possible fuck ups that haven't even happened yet (and if they do, might yet be beneficial), when you've Labour guilty of DEFINITE fuck ups whose appalling consequences of mass-death and economic catastrophe are all too evident. Glass houses etc.
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Lulz. Surely you jest.
Ironing.
Ironing.
Why? I have never voted for nor supported Labour until late last year. You need to stop with this false dichotomy that everyone who criticises the Tories is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour fanatic.
That wasn't what I meant (at all), but let's not do the whole Labour are shit thing again. Look, they just are, self-evidently and empirically (and even, pretty much, by their own admission and various apologies). End of.
So what did you mean then?
Sigh. Really, man?
In a nutshell: it's ironic to call out the Tories about possible fuck ups that haven't even happened yet (and if they do, might yet be beneficial), when you've Labour guilty of DEFINITE fuck ups whose appalling consequences of mass-death and economic catastrophe are all too evident. Glass houses etc.
So it was about Labour then. Which I made no mention of. And you said it wasn't about.
Cavey wrote:
I don't agree that's the case, but even if it were - denying people any vote or power because it's all too complicated for them, they could never understand etc. isn't the solution. You need to think about where that road leads.
I'm not denying them any power at all! Why are people suddenly so of the opinion that democracies only exist when referendums happen? We've had three in living memory, all in the last five years. Before that the country was no less democratic. Nowhere else feels the need to carry out this ridiculous circus when there are important decisions to be made. Referendums exist as a sop to the people, making them think they are influential, purely as a source of popularity for the government that announces the damned thing.
Cras wrote:
Nowhere else feels the need to carry out this ridiculous circus when there are important decisions to be made.
Isn't there a European country that has referendums for loads of stuff?
Let me look it up.
There probably is. Don't interrupt me, I'm hyperbowling.
Grim... wrote:
Cras wrote:
Nowhere else feels the need to carry out this ridiculous circus when there are important decisions to be made.
Isn't there a European country that has referendums for loads of stuff?
Let me look it up.
Switzerland has to hold a referendum if a petition reaches a certain number (I think 100,000)
Switzerland, that's the bugger.
Almost 600 referendums since its inauguration as a modern state.
[edit]Damnit Malc!
Almost 600 referendums since its inauguration as a modern state.
[edit]Damnit Malc!
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I don't agree that's the case, but even if it were - denying people any vote or power because it's all too complicated for them, they could never understand etc. isn't the solution. You need to think about where that road leads.
I'm not denying them any power at all! Why are people suddenly so of the opinion that democracies only exist when referendums happen? We've had three in living memory, all in the last five years. Before that the country was no less democratic. Nowhere else feels the need to carry out this ridiculous circus when there are important decisions to be made. Referendums exist as a sop to the people, making them think they are influential, purely as a source of popularity for the government that announces the damned thing.
I couldn't remember any others apart from changing the voting system, so here they are:
Quote:
Previous referendums in the UK
8 March 1973: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (yes to remaining part of the UK)
5 June 1975: UK – Membership of the European Community referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Community (yes)
1 March 1979: Scotland – Scottish devolution referendum on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (40 per cent of the electorate had to vote yes in the referendum, although a small majority voted yes this was short of the 40 per cent threshold required to enact devolution)
1 March 1979: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
11 September 1997: Scotland – Scottish devolution referenda on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (both referendums received a yes vote)
18 September 1997: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
7 May 1998: London – Greater London Authority referendum on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)
22 May 1998: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
3 March 2011: Wales - Welsh devolution referendum on whether the National Assembly for Wales should gain the power to legislate on a wider range of matters (yes)
5 May 2011: UK – referendum on whether to change the voting system for electing MPs to the House of Commons from first past the post to the alternative vote (no, first past the post will continue to be used to elect MPs to the House of Commons)
18 September 2014: Scotland – referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country (no, the electorate voted 55 per cent to 45 per cent in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK.
8 March 1973: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (yes to remaining part of the UK)
5 June 1975: UK – Membership of the European Community referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Community (yes)
1 March 1979: Scotland – Scottish devolution referendum on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (40 per cent of the electorate had to vote yes in the referendum, although a small majority voted yes this was short of the 40 per cent threshold required to enact devolution)
1 March 1979: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
11 September 1997: Scotland – Scottish devolution referenda on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (both referendums received a yes vote)
18 September 1997: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
7 May 1998: London – Greater London Authority referendum on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)
22 May 1998: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
3 March 2011: Wales - Welsh devolution referendum on whether the National Assembly for Wales should gain the power to legislate on a wider range of matters (yes)
5 May 2011: UK – referendum on whether to change the voting system for electing MPs to the House of Commons from first past the post to the alternative vote (no, first past the post will continue to be used to elect MPs to the House of Commons)
18 September 2014: Scotland – referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country (no, the electorate voted 55 per cent to 45 per cent in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK.
Prior to AV none of those were national until you get back to 75
Cras wrote:
Prior to AV none of those were national until you get back to 75
Which, of course, was the EU vote.
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I don't agree that's the case, but even if it were - denying people any vote or power because it's all too complicated for them, they could never understand etc. isn't the solution. You need to think about where that road leads.
I'm not denying them any power at all! Why are people suddenly so of the opinion that democracies only exist when referendums happen? We've had three in living memory, all in the last five years. Before that the country was no less democratic. Nowhere else feels the need to carry out this ridiculous circus when there are important decisions to be made. Referendums exist as a sop to the people, making them think they are influential, purely as a source of popularity for the government that announces the damned thing.
No, I'm basing my comments on your stated views and sentiments about it being irresponsible to give the public any vote or say on such a fundamentally important matter such as this; that they're incapable of ever acquiring sufficient knowledge to ever be informed and suchlike.
It's the principle that's important; I believe people have the fundamental right to vote and influence even complex things that, ultimately, they are paying for and/or which affect them profoundly. You don't.
I also don't share your intensely cynical view of referendums, unsurprisingly.
You will in two weeks 
Cavey wrote:
It's the principle that's important; I believe people have the fundamental right to vote and influence even complex things that, ultimately, they are paying for and/or which affect them profoundly.
Do you think people should be able to set VAT rates?
Cavey wrote:
It's the principle that's important; I believe people have the fundamental right to vote and influence even complex things that, ultimately, they are paying for and/or which affect them profoundly. You don't.
No, I absolutely do. However, I believe that is best achieved during General Elections, where you choose representatives who agree with your beliefs, rather than by direct voting.
From reading the criteria of one of the earlier referendums, I reckon there should be a minimum turn criterion out for this referendum.
Which one had that? Some of them have been binding, so a minimum turnout criteria makes sense. This one isn't. They'd suffer incredibly for it, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping the government on the 24th June saying 'It's nice that you think that, but we don't care'.
Cras wrote:
No, I absolutely do. However, I believe that is best achieved during General Elections, where you choose representatives who agree with your beliefs, rather than by direct voting.
And also by talking to your MP, which I do semi-regularly. Cras wrote:
Which one had that? Some of them have been binding, so a minimum turnout criteria makes sense. This one isn't. They'd suffer incredibly for it, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping the government on the 24th June saying 'It's nice that you think that, but we don't care'.
Oops, sorry I've mis-read the Scottish one from 1979. It had a minimum YES vote, not a minimum turnout for Yes to be passed.
Mr Russell wrote:
Cras wrote:
Which one had that? Some of them have been binding, so a minimum turnout criteria makes sense. This one isn't. They'd suffer incredibly for it, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping the government on the 24th June saying 'It's nice that you think that, but we don't care'.
Oops, sorry I've mis-read the Scottish one from 1979. It had a minimum YES vote, not a minimum turnout for Yes to be passed.
This was inserted by anti-devolution Labour MPs to scupper the result.
Cras wrote:
'It's nice that you think that, but we don't care'.
That's the EU way!
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cras wrote:
No, I absolutely do. However, I believe that is best achieved during General Elections, where you choose representatives who agree with your beliefs, rather than by direct voting.
And also by talking to your MP, which I do semi-regularly.Mine's a useless warmongering New Labour sack of shit.
Lonewolves wrote:
Mine's a useless warmongering New Labour sack of shit.
I've had three Tories in a row, so, y'know.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Mine's a useless warmongering New Labour sack of shit.
I've had three Tories in a row, so, y'know.
Life's better under a Conservative.
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
It's the principle that's important; I believe people have the fundamental right to vote and influence even complex things that, ultimately, they are paying for and/or which affect them profoundly. You don't.
No, I absolutely do. However, I believe that is best achieved during General Elections, where you choose representatives who agree with your beliefs, rather than by direct voting.
Well that doesn't sit very well with what you were saying before, but I can't be bothered to start re-quoting bits of your original and subsequent posts just to make some petty point or other, so hey. I must be getting soft in my old age.
As for General Elections, I really don't see what the difference is (from your POV) between where a party puts a clear commitment for something that's "too complex" for the man in the street to vote on into their manifesto, and that same thing being voted on in a referendum. Surely the latter's more focused and preferable in many ways, and either way, you've got thickoes voting on stuff they don't understand according to Lord Protector Craster.
General Elections aren't suitable for everything; would you be happy if the Tories had put "we're leaving the EU" into the manifesto, and got voted in? No? Thought not lol.
Kern wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Mine's a useless warmongering New Labour sack of shit.
I've had three Tories in a row, so, y'know.
Life's better under a Conservative.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Mine's a useless warmongering New Labour sack of shit.
I've had three Tories in a row, so, y'know.
My last MP, (Graham Allen - Lab) was pretty good, even though I never voted for him.
Cavey wrote:
General Elections aren't suitable for everything; would you be happy if the Tories had put "we're leaving the EU" into the manifesto, and got voted in? No? Thought not lol.
I wouldn't be happy about it, because it's not my preference, but I'd accept it. Mainly because as much as I disapprove of some of their methods, I trust the Tories to have properly consulted and researched before committing to something like that as a manifesto promise.
Cavey wrote:
General Elections aren't suitable for everything; would you be happy if the Tories had put "we're leaving the EU" into the manifesto, and got voted in? No? Thought not lol.
Absolutely yes I would. Because then if it all goes to shit we get to vote them out for doing such a ridiculous thing. The way things are, they can just say "we bent to the will of the people" and wring their hands as our economy goes down the toilet.
Also there's no way it would have gone into the 2015 manifesto. The Tory party are desperately split on Europe.
But the EU isn't the kind of thing you can drift in and out of willy-nilly. We can't suddenly declare to our continental chums 'sorry chaps, but your purple widget policy is a bit crap so we're ignoring it', especially if that policy is written into a treaty. This is about who gets to decide the purple widget policy.
There should be a referendum to decide tax rates for millionaires.
markg wrote:
There should be a referendum to decide tax rates for millionaires.
Don't underestimate the ability of the media to get turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Cras wrote:
Cavey wrote:
General Elections aren't suitable for everything; would you be happy if the Tories had put "we're leaving the EU" into the manifesto, and got voted in? No? Thought not lol.
I wouldn't be happy about it, because it's not my preference, but I'd accept it.
Well then, with all due respect, that's just plain silly.
Something so fundamental and momentous, and involving third parties like the EU on such a fundamental level can't be just bundled together with a whole bunch of other run-of-the-mill manifesto stuff, some of which you'll agree with, and some you won't. It's self-evidently problematic on all sorts of levels, obviously.
Well sure. And you'll note, of course, that it's not in any mainstream party's manifesto. Because the people who actually understand the implications and have done the research know full well that it's a terrible idea to leave Europe. So what we've done instead is throw the question open to people who don't know whether it's a good idea or not. I have many stronger words than 'plain silly' for that choice.
Cras wrote:
Because the people who actually understand the implications and have done the research know full well that it's a terrible idea to leave Europe.
Leave the EU, not Europe. Although the Caribbean is nice this time of year. [/pet hate]
Are there any arguments or views on the leave side that you accept or have sympathy for?
Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Because the people who actually understand the implications and have done the research know full well that it's a terrible idea to leave Europe.
Leave the EU, not Europe.
I think 'leaving Europe' is acceptable considering we know what topic we're currently discussing (ie political). I don't think anyone really believes we're moving in geographical terms.
Pity. It would be rather fun.
POWER UP THE ENGINES
Lonewolves wrote:
Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Because the people who actually understand the implications and have done the research know full well that it's a terrible idea to leave Europe.
Leave the EU, not Europe.
I think 'leaving Europe' is acceptable considering we know what topic we're currently discussing (ie political). I don't think anyone really believes we're moving in geographical terms.
I hoped we might. Perhaps get a big pile and punt our tiny island a bit further into the Atlantic, or maybe into the Artic circle so we can get in on that Northern Lights action.
I suppose this would be relevant if we weren't already an island:
Not if Scotland get a second chance at the Scexit.
Mimi wrote:
Not if Scotland get a second chance at the Scexit.
And they'd probably vote in droves to become independent just to get back into the EU.
GazChap wrote:
I suppose this would be relevant if we weren't already an island:
Why is the state shorthand for Florida FLA?
Because it's fucking like Alabama
MaliA wrote:
GazChap wrote:
I suppose this would be relevant if we weren't already an island:
Why is the state shorthand for Florida FLA?
Because it's fucking like Alabama
Jesus Christ dude, will your dad jokes ever stop? You jumped the shark a long time ago.
Lonewolves wrote:
Jesus Christ dude, will your dad jokes ever stop? You jumped the shark a long time ago.
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Jesus Christ dude, will your dad jokes ever stop? You jumped the shark a long time ago.
L-lol