Options
an impatial referendum
crystallad
Posts: 3,744 Forum Member
✭✭✭
All I want is facts.
I don't think government should interfere and give opinions when they are in position of influence.
MP'S can have a second job so can have an agenda on the referendum.
Government have given us this referendum because they think we should decide,yet government wants to dictate the referendum,it should be totally taken out of their hands and an impatial referendum will be much more democratic.
I don't think government should interfere and give opinions when they are in position of influence.
MP'S can have a second job so can have an agenda on the referendum.
Government have given us this referendum because they think we should decide,yet government wants to dictate the referendum,it should be totally taken out of their hands and an impatial referendum will be much more democratic.
0
Comments
BiB Yes of course they did;-) Dave promised a referendum for 2 reasons 1) to appease his backbenchers and prevent revolts, a leadership battle or more UKIP defections and 2) to stop Tory voters defecting to UKIP - Dave doesn't want a referendum as he wants us to stay in the EU, but was scared of UKIP's influence as a referendum is only needed for us to exit the EU not stay in. No way would he have promised a referendum if he could have got away with it and probably expected there to be a coalation with the LibDems that would give him an excuse to renage on the promise.
It would be nice, but they haven't been impartial before, especially last year. I can't remember you complaining about the government interference then.
Brown signed the surrender documents with no mandate
To the letter.
And he will try every pathetic trick in the book to load the dice in his favour. He is a truly vacuous politician.
You do realise that it was Thatcher who stopped European issues going to automatic referendum by default?
The Socialists must be very ineffectual if they cannot reverse ANY policies that were implemented 30 years or so ago
I don't believe any political party to give me a balanced view nor business as they only have money to concider and leaving the EU has many many more considerations.
I don't know who should Inform the public but at the moment every reason to say or leave is an opinion.
Civil servants? ?
Can that be achieved?
Is it possible?
The result of the referendum, will be determined by the thoughts of each individual voter, in the polling both. Most will have already made up their mind on how they will vote.
That doesn't mean that some won't change.
With a two question referendum, yes/in, vs no/out, there is going to be winners and losers.
There is no middle ground.
Any more options?
I don't think there's any impartiality to be had in matters like these. For a start it affects everyone so those who believe they benefit will try to make convincing (and often false or misleading) arguments on the case of membership. Similarly those who think they don't benefit will try to make convincing (and often false or misleading) arguments against the case of membership. It's hard to find a true neutral in referendums.
One thing that's for sure is that the amount of nonsense will increase in direct proportion to the closeness of the vote and the media press will no doubt be the worst culprits. For that reason alone lets hope it's close and polls have the lead switching either way so we can at least see that spectacle one more time.
(If previous experience is anything to go by.)
http://optank.com/gov/essay-is-labour-still-socialist/
what is needed is a very simple set of facts:
first and foremost - what does a "Yes" vote mean? what is the end-game of the EU, i.e. will voting yes equate to agreeing to become part of a federal superstate at some point down the line with no further referenda?
you also need some understanding of how the economy deals with the rest of the world, including current EU and non-EU trade figures, and impacts of the Yes/No outcomes on trade with the EU (what will happen if we leave, do we lose that business in the short/long term?)
Immigration is a big issue, so we need current EU and non-EU immigration figures as well as migration figures from the UK to EU/non-EU countries so we can clearly balance out what impact leaving will have on the social spectrum of the UK
Finally... the future - we need a clear plan of what the UK Government will do in the post-EU months/years as well as a clear plan of what the Yes/No outcomes mean - if we vote to leave, do we become "independent" with effect from the next working day? does independence mean that the 1972 European Communities Act will be repealed, and what timescales will that take?
this is practically impossible to do because the UK Government has no clear plan to let us leave the EU, it's in the interest of politicians to continue with the status quo because they feel there are no better options so without any plans for "What will we do without Europe?" already in place and agreed AHEAD of any referendum date, we won't see any impartial information on which to make an informed decision at the ballot box
Good luck with that. The first thing you'd have to do is stop newspapers reporting on the referendum.
The big worry is that the debate will be crystallised by a few relatively unimportant issues that the media decide to push. We saw an example yesterday when Boris said that if we couldn't stop immigrants claiming tax credits then we should leave - as if something as important as our EU membership should be decided on something as relatively unimportant as a few migrants claiming in work benefits?:o
meanwhile nobody has mentioned the Common agricultural policy.
The EU is one of those things where facts can be used either way and it is down to which side can shout their version of fact loudest. TBH there are huge areas of EU policy where I do not have a Scooby as to what is right or not and then I have to fall back on the tried and tested method that I have used a lot in life. Trust my gut instinct and look at the people who are doing the shouting and I have to say that in any other matter I would steer well clear of those yelling No the loudest and go Yes.
I believe that a hell of a lot of voters will be very sketchy as to the details so it could well boil down to which is the more "normal" and appealing side. If this is the case then the No side will have a problem appealing to a wide range of voters as they are almost exclusively angry old white ultra Tories.
the bold is to highlight where the emphasis of the matter which should be targeted - in work benefits
sorry folks but if you're working, why are you also claiming additional benefits from the state? the welfare state should be redesigned to support people out of work, and provide them with a mechanism of affording to live whilst searching for work or to live to a reasonable level but welfare should never be worth more than a minimum wage job!
people already in work should be seeking higher paid roles rather than resting on their laurels and claiming additional income from the state to supplement their income
I haven't got kids, so one argument could be why should my taxes part-fund child care vouchers for families with children? likewise, if you have children, and you're not earning enough to support your family, what personal responsibility are taking and what you doing to change that? are you seeking additional income via part-time work in the evenings (bar job or something) or are you just claiming that life isn't fair and the Government should provide more income support?
I fully expect this to come under fire, but frankly I don't care any more - we have single-parent families as commonplace in society but why are we not tackling the root cause of that issue? why is the Government not promoting family life and providing more emphasis on families staying together rather than continually funding a safety net for a growing portion of society?
families earning a joint income in excess of £60,000 may still qualify for tax credits or child benefit vouchers - how is this fair when the system was originally designed to support low income families?
the entire welfare system needs change in order to balance out all of the issues people have with it, it's not just about migrants claiming welfare, the rules need to be rewritten entirely to reduce public debt
careful with the allegations of racism there my friend....
Nothing racist in saying that most of the most visible No campaigners we will see will be old angry white male ultra Tories. If this is in any way incorrect then feel free to report me to the cops or whoever you like as this is nothing to do with racism so kindly don't try and pin that badge on me.
fully agree with this - for a No campaign to work successfully, there needs to be a very clear leadership and a very clear campaign message "Here is how our future will look, and here is how we will embrace it and lead the country into the future"
Shame that to do this requires the current Government and the UK Foreign Office to start developing some friendships and alliances that will annoy the EU leaders, and even more so, will probably annoy foreign governments if we make alliances and then the result is a Yes to remain, effectively saying to them "Yeah we want to stay where we are thanks.... but hey, we wasted 18 months of your time discussing what could have been!"