|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 18 Jan 21:54
Referenda are really an appeal to ignorance. There is little point electing politicians to evaluate the detail of policy if we, as voters, are able to do this for ourselves. Why not just cut out the middleman and rely on the civil service to carry out the wishes of the populace? Probably because history has taught us there is a distinction between democracy and demobracy. Democracy is for well-informed citizens ; demobracy is for simpletons.
Here are a couple of referendums little remembered nowadays because they are too embarrassing all round. In 1936 the German people were asked whether they approved the invasion of Austria. 98% of those eligible to vote under Nazi rule said they did. This impressive percentage was improved upon in 1938 when 99% of the voters approved the acquisition of the Sudetenland. Maybe this is what democracy looks like. Of course, there were voices, many from within the Germany military, warning against where this was leading. No matter, they were silenced as being part of scaremongering, or accused of being unpatriotic.
Amidst the rubble of Berlin, Dresden and Hamburg in 1945, you would have struggled to find any German who admitted having voted for either of these. Yet they overwhelmingly did. Not through intimidation, for that was no longer necessary with the political opposition behind bars. In a free vote, the inhabitants of a highly educated nation with an impressive cultural history got it astonishingly wrong. That cost 8 million German lives, before we start counting the rest. Ignorance costs lives.
sammer
Post Edited (Fri 18 Jan 21:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 19 Jan 00:34
I'm struggling to find the parallel of 1936 Germany to leaving the EU?
Retreating generally leads to fewer casualties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 19 Jan 07:14
I've always been of the opinion that referenda in general are an expensive waste of time, used by politicians to dupe voters into believing that they have somehow shaped their nation's future.
Take the Brexit referendum - what did that show, exactly? Why, that approximately half of those who voted were of the opposite opinion to the other half and more than a quarter of those eligible to vote couldn't be bothered to get off their collective @r$e.
What is the point of electing politicians to Parliament, if they can't make decisions in the best interests of the citizens they've been elected to serve? Instead they pass the buck to an ignorant or ill informed public, with a simplistic 'stick or twist' question.
I wonder what proportion of those who voted Leave thought it would be akin to walking out on a partner in a 40 year relationship?
''Well, what's the point in struggling on? We don't love each other anymore. We're better off apart.''
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 19 Jan 23:02
TWWK,
The Crimean referendum was as simplistic as any other, voted on a single issue. It was as valid as that as the opinion of Ulsterman in the wake of Irish Independence and probably as limited as well in the wider scope of history.
Richie,
I was making a point about he limitations of public opinion, not a direct relationship with the Nazi referendums. The people often get it wrong, so they can blame the politicians. When the politicians get it wrong, they ask the people in order to shift the blame. A referendum is for a government which does not know how to govern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Sun 20 Jan 11:35
The referendum was valid. Referenda are held in valid forms all over.
What was not valid were the steps taken by our government, the lies told, the deception achieved, that led to why we needed to have a referendum in the first place.
We wanted to join a Common Market. For many that was it. We did not ask our government to hand over any of our sovereign rights to Brussels. Our politicians did that.
Even Brexit was mishandled and negotiations carried out by people who were not only retainers but incompetent negotiators. That is what led us to where we are, not the Referendum.
There are just as many lies and injustices perpetrated in General Elections and what follows as there are in referendums. Although I think Better Together probably were the exception there.
This whole situation has come about by the duplicitous, perfidious and disingenuous actions of politicians not the actions of the People or a Referendum. And that is how it has always been.
There are no limitations of public opinion only paucity of politicians and to-day we are seeing the most incompetent and dangerous politicians I can remember in my lifetime.
The Maastricht Treat, The Treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon were all steps too far and some countries even held referenda to rebuff them but once more the slimy politicians TOLD us what was best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 20 Jan 11:54
i do think that for major constitutional it is good to get agreement and test the will of the people...
however, what i don't like is when you have a cross party group coming together to argue one or both sides of the argument, whatever they say and promise to do, they are not accountable to deliver - because on the day of the poll, that group disbands, people go back to their original party and no-one is on the hook and everyone starts distancing themselves
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 20 Jan 16:15
I think the Brexit referendum was called Sammer,in large part with the confidence that it would be a resounding remain.
The only thing the politicians got wrong(again) was the thoughts and feelings of a majority of the folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Thu 24 Jan 12:54
An interesting letter from the National. I have a lot of time for this poster and wonder if she has qualifications in Scottish Law or History.
Maria Carnero 4 hrs ago
"marking the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and its incorporation into that of England"
Actually I do not think this is correct. The Scottish parliament was not "incorporated into that of England". If you read the Treaty of Union 1706 you don't see specified anywhere that the parliament of Scotland had to be dissolved or incorporated into the Parliament of England. What you read is that 45 MPs from Scotland would pass to join those of England to form the "Parliament of Great Britain", not the "Parliament of England". The parliament of England therefore ceased to exist.
The Scottish Parliament however reconvened in 12 May 1999 and has existed simultaneously with the Parliament of Great Britain ever since, sharing powers. This has been done not because of the grace and generosity of Westminster but because it was demanded by the people of Scotland who voted for the devolution of powers from Westminster directly to their very own Parliament in Scotland in both 1979 (although ignored by Westminster) and 1997. England's Parliament however, never reconvened.
Westminster was in borrowed time as a unique parliament in the UK from 1979 until 1997 and they knew it. The rule of the 40% was just an excuse to delay the inevitable. In 1997 not only they had to devolve the powers they would in 1979, but more, because the movement towards autonomy in Scotland had legs of its own and it would take a bit more than a few power crumbs to stop it.
Westminster is in borrowed time now too. Actually more than ever. The Status quo the people of Scotland voted for in 2014 included the Scotland Act 1998. This act includes the premise that all powers that are not reserved are devolved. When the people of Scotland voted in 2014, all those powers that are currently in Brussels were NOT reserved, hence upon brexit, they should ALL come back to the Scottish Parliament, Westminster is acting ultra vires by stealing those powers from the people of Scotland without their consent and by doing so destroying the only status quo the people of Scotland gave in 2014 consent for the union with the Kingdom of England to continue.
In addition, the "vow", the promise of Devo Max by Brown and the promise to become "the most devolved nation of the world" were also part of that status quo the people of Scotland voted for in 2014. This means that the people of Scotland on 18th September 2014 may have not voted to dissolve the union with the kingdom of England completely, but they certainly removed legitimacy from Westminster to hold most powers: Devo Max is Devo Max. That vote in 2014 basically told Westminster that Scotland wants most of its powers back. For instance, there are regions in Spain that have had devolved broadcasting for decades. Scotland cannot be the most devolved nation in the world if regions in Spain have more devolution than it does. The control in London of what the BBC broadcasts in Scotland as the pocketing by London of the TV licence fee are in borrowed time. NI, also a nation in the UK, has more devolved powers than Scotland. For instance, NI controls its own civil service. Well then, for Scotland to be the most devolved nation in the world it will have to have more devolved powers than NI, therefore all those powers that WEstminster currently holds to control the civil service in Scotland, belong to Holyrood and Westminster is holding them in borrowed time and against what the people of Scotland voted for in 2014.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Had Westminster and its political apparatus in the form of labour, tories and libdem done the right thing, which was giving Devo Max to Scotland and federalise the UK to fulfill their word, and we would not be facing the prospect of another independence referendum for Scotland.
You reap what you sow, and what the English establishment and its 3 political arms have sown is ripe and ready to be harvested.
Last Updated: 35 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Thu 31 Jan 13:40
"The referendum was valid. "
It was. It was also advisory, rather than legally binding. And the Leave campaign broke the law. And the Leave campaign said at the time that it would be crazy to leave the Custom Union. And that the deal with the EU would be the easiest in History. And on top of that, Teresa May and other senior Tories argued after the Welsh Assembly referendum that the people of Wales should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to accept the terms of the deal reached but don't think the same opportunity should be afforded now. Not quite as simple as saying "the referendum was valid" and leaving the result as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 31 Jan 15:23
“The referendum was valid. "
KP said:
“It was. It was also advisory, rather than legally binding”.
Maybe, but the Government leaflet promoting staying in the EU at a cost of £9 million said it was “ a once in a generation decision” and “the Government will implement what you decide”.
MP’s voted narrowly (50.7%) on Tuesday to take “ no deal” off the table. That was not legally binding either so I assume you won’t have a problem if the Government ignores that vote if we can’t reach agreement with the EU?
Post Edited (Thu 31 Jan 15:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Thu 31 Jan 17:31
I can't remember that leaflet parbucks - do you have a photo of it? I however remember the Vote Leave leaflet that insinuated that Turkey was about to join the EU and that 100 million Turks were on their way over here. And I remember the Vote Leave leaflet that said "There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave." I'd upload a photo but I'm never sure how to do this on this site.
As for the MPs vote, it was a totally meaningless amendment and a non-binding one, and as such I wouldn't hold any MP to task for ignoring it. The whole Tuesday night saga was a proper farce with MPs voting on party lines rather than for the good of their constituents. If we do crash out with no deal, part of me would quite like to see the total **** show that it results in, but the fact that the likes of Rees-Mogg would make a killing from it while ordinary punters suffer means I'm really hoping something happens with either a customs union/FoM agreement, an extension to Article 50 or we decide not to Leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 31 Jan 19:36
Kelty
Like yourself I’m not great on links but if you Google “Cameron Leaflet” you will see what the Government spent £9 million pounds on and failing to win the referendum. See page 20.
Although very pro Remain it was not counted as spending on the referendum as it was issued just before the official campaign started.
Remain spent 3 times more than the Leave campaign even if you question some of the latter’s spending.
Post Edited (Thu 31 Jan 20:09)
|
|
|
|
|
|
