DS Forums

 
 

The End of the Referendum?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-12-2016, 19:22
Dacco
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 47°9′ S, 126°43′ W
Posts: 2,948
Switzerland's population appears to be better educated than ours, though, and can be trusted to vote after having ensured that they are in full possession of the facts. They also don't have scandalously bad "campaigns" like Vote Leave.
BIB, you mean Vote Remain don't you?.
Dacco is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-12-2016, 19:26
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 43,320
I think it's more a case that we don't do them often enough, so the few we've had tend to become a way of protesting against something the referendum isn't strictly about.

Plus you'd expect the government (local or otherwise) to be better at wording them and planning for all possible outcomes if they had more practice. Of course I'm assuming here a level of competence that this government has never demonstrated ever, but I'm optimistic like that.

Even Old Etonians must retain some capacity to learn from their mistakes? Though it's unlikely they really have the willingness to clear up after themselves, as Cameron and Osborne so aptly demonstrated.
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 19:28
Mesostim
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,514
This being the argument that she is a dictator....
No she "thinks" she's a dictator... she got slapped down on that
Mesostim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 19:33
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
BIB, you mean Vote Remain don't you?.
Even I'll admit that they were useless at convincing people to go their way, but not scandalously bad.

At least they weren't pushing for a terrible outcome based on absolute lies and spin.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 19:36
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 43,320
.... she's a Tory. They have systematically removed our liberties over the last six and a half years.
And before that too. Thatcher centralised a lot of things that had previously been done at the local level in her fight against left-wing politics
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 21:57
Capablanca
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4,901
.... she's a Tory. They have systematically removed our liberties over the last six and a half years.
Really? What liberties have you lost?
Capablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 22:20
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,224
The EU referendum is a really bad example of a successful referendum because it was worded in such a way that no one knew exactly what changes would result from a Leave vote (and still no one knows) and both sides' campaigns were entirely based on half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Maybe we should try again with a proposition that is fully drafted and costed and supported only by factual documents and, if that one works, take it from there.
You can't do that though. Because what we get is decided by the Eu not us . Do you want A or B can't be asked - when we will be denied B, and given X.

the factual documents are the same expert projections that Leave rubbished - as they showed the downside to going.

You can't even ask the current issue what should take priority - immigration control or free access to markets in Europe - because its a matter of how much of both you can get .
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 22:37
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
Really? What liberties have you lost?
Well theres the snoopers charter, if they decide to use what they've got on you they must lie so the fact that its been discovered via snooping is not revealed and if it is you cannot use it legally as part of your own defense etc.

If you cannot challenge your accuser then pretty much its a system where the state can rule by defacto power.


Just got to hope a few judges will be not impressed and actually make some sort of pain for the government but thats a long hope really
Maxatoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 22:45
Geelong Cat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,801
Referendums are fine if you know the result, and its unlikely to change . If its two thirds, or 60-40 one way, its a way to shut the minority up . If circumstances don't change, you would expect the outcome not to change - as the logic doesn't. Nuclear weapons are not going anywhere for the next 50-80 years, , so its unlikely that a 65-35 vote, to keep them, will change. Issues like hanging are also unlikely to see a swing back in favour.
I'm not sure about hanging specifically, but I'd hate to see the death penalty put to a referendum, as there's a decent chance a majority would be in favour. The most recent figures showed 48% in favour, and that's before any referendum campaign...!
Geelong Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 22:57
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
Countries like Ireland and Switzerland who regularly hold referendums would never put something as vast as EU membership on a ballot paper as a 'yes' or 'no' option. They would instinctively know it was a recipe for disaster and something that could do serious longterm damage to their country. Repealing one law by referendum is fine, but not thousands of laws and directives in one fell swoop.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2016, 23:34
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
This being the argument that she is a dictator as she merely wished to move ahead with the decision of the electorate who voted in a referendum in which 36 million people turned out - a referendum which parliament voted for in the first place presumably on the assumption the result would be respected otherwise why bother.

Not sure what your idea of a dictator is - but it doesnt normally involve implementing the democratic decision of the electorate following a national vote of the people.

Another piece of remoaner hyperbole!
But a dictator definition also includes those who override constitutional precedents and procedures and the rule of law in order to force through their policies - getting to the end never justifies the means. May's been trying to play fast and loose with the British Constitution and as a result her government has now ended up in the Supreme Court.

Spoiler
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 08:27
tenofspades
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,941
Great thread. It's tricky what to conclude from it, anything you conclude is biased by what you think of the Brexit result. For instance, my view is possibly that the referendum ought to have had clear 'victory' conditions. I know the result was 52:48 but it could equally have been 50.9:49.1. And then what do you do? The population is a schizophrenic snake, insufficient to dictate one way or another the result. That's why Scotland's referendum might have the right idea of putting it at 55% the result to start the actions of making Scotland independent.
tenofspades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 08:53
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
You can't do that though. Because what we get is decided by the Eu not us . Do you want A or B can't be asked - when we will be denied B, and given X.

the factual documents are the same expert projections that Leave rubbished - as they showed the downside to going.

You can't even ask the current issue what should take priority - immigration control or free access to markets in Europe - because its a matter of how much of both you can get .
Yeah, I meant that if we were going to have a referendum in the future on a different issue it should be on a proposition that was fully costed and clearly explained. The EU one showed that if you just go with a "vote on your feelings not the facts" referendum it causes major problems.

And actually, why couldn't we have had a referendum on the actual outcome of leaving the EU? If the government had triggered Article 50, negotiated all the terms and then put it to the vote, we would have been voting for or against the planned outcome not the unplanned consequences. People keep citing Switzerland, but I doubt that the Swiss would put a nebulous proposition to the vote the way our government did.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:04
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,892
... For instance, my view is possibly that the referendum ought to have had clear 'victory' conditions. ...
And I think you'll have a lot of people agreeing with that! A clearly defined margin to determine what would constitute a decision, whether or not it was binding, and maybe even some form of timescale on government action/response.
And maybe a better question, or clear stated 'what it will mean' published before the event to save us all from the 'yes but what flavour'...

This one was so deficient - and everyone who voted it through parliament (and/or failed to submit/support corrective amendments) takes a share of that blame, regardless of why it came into being.
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:09
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
Was never in favour of Refs. This recent one confirms why. I hope we never have another one. They are so divisive.
That might well be an argument for having referendums more often. Had these happened here and across Europe whilst the EEC developed from a common market to full-blown political union that few were consulted on, then we might have avoided the current problems. The electorate would either have been persuaded in favour or have put a stop to it.

The lesson to the body politic is perhaps that they must either completely suppress democratic choice (the preferred policy of the EU and British governments heretofore) or they should aim to bring the electorate with them. The sudden venting of the political head of steam after 40 years (since the last referendum on Europe) was almost bound to burn fingers.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:21
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
I think it pointed up just what a lying lot politicians are.
The referendum lies, threats and promises (from both sides) should be put on advertising hoardings at every election as a reminder to the electorate of just how utterly contemptible politicians as a breed are.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:32
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
Great thread. It's tricky what to conclude from it, anything you conclude is biased by what you think of the Brexit result. For instance, my view is possibly that the referendum ought to have had clear 'victory' conditions. I know the result was 52:48 but it could equally have been 50.9:49.1. And then what do you do? The population is a schizophrenic snake, insufficient to dictate one way or another the result. That's why Scotland's referendum might have the right idea of putting it at 55% the result to start the actions of making Scotland independent.
Good points. I voted for Brexit. Nevertheless I think that results of referendums should be required to reach some agreed set of thresholds to be deemed valid. It could be something like: at least 50% of the electorate need to vote, and of the 50% who voted at least 60% of them must have voted for or against the proposed motion. If these thresholds are not met then the issue would be deemed undecided.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:41
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
I think it pointed up just what a lying lot politicians are.
The referendum lies, threats and promises (from both sides) should be put on advertising hoardings at every election as a reminder to the electorate of just how utterly contemptible politicians as a breed are.
Well, in reality it was mixed bag wasn't it. There were various dubious claims touted on both sides. The were also well reasoned and honest views expressed from both sides too. But that's just the nature of the electoral process. We as voters are required to apply critical thinking to the various choices on offer.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:45
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
Well, in reality it was mixed bag wasn't it. There were various dubious claims touted on both sides. The were also well reasoned and honest views expressed from both sides too. But that's just the nature of the electoral process. We as voters are required to apply critical thinking to the various choices on offer.
Maybe all hoardings and broadcasts should have massive "health" warnings like cigarette packets.
Something along the lines of "Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth."
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:49
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
Good points. I voted for Brexit. Nevertheless I think that results of referendums should be required to reach some agreed set of thresholds to be deemed valid. It could be something like: at least 50% of the electorate need to vote, and of the 50% who voted at least 60% of them must have voted for or against the proposed motion. If these thresholds are not met then the issue would be deemed undecided.
If it's deemed undecided, what happens then? Another referendum in five years, perhaps?

If it's a major and irreversible change, then I think a 55% threshold of those voting for the change would be sensible, otherwise we stick with the status quo for the time being. I wouldn't insist that a majority of the electorate have to vote for it to be valid though.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 09:51
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
Well, in reality it was mixed bag wasn't it. There were various dubious claims touted on both sides. The were also well reasoned and honest views expressed from both sides too. But that's just the nature of the electoral process. We as voters are required to apply critical thinking to the various choices on offer.
In an election, yes, but should views (as opposed to facts) form the bulk of the data supplied to voters in a referendum?
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 10:46
tenofspades
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,941
And I think you'll have a lot of people agreeing with that! A clearly defined margin to determine what would constitute a decision, whether or not it was binding, and maybe even some form of timescale on government action/response.
And maybe a better question, or clear stated 'what it will mean' published before the event to save us all from the 'yes but what flavour'...

This one was so deficient - and everyone who voted it through parliament (and/or failed to submit/support corrective amendments) takes a share of that blame, regardless of why it came into being.
I suppose it partly would be expected by a country not very well versed in referendums(as opposed to Switzerland), but yes those are the definitely some of the key lessons from it.

Good points. I voted for Brexit. Nevertheless I think that results of referendums should be required to reach some agreed set of thresholds to be deemed valid. It could be something like: at least 50% of the electorate need to vote, and of the 50% who voted at least 60% of them must have voted for or against the proposed motion. If these thresholds are not met then the issue would be deemed undecided.
I agree
tenofspades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 11:33
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
In an election, yes, but should views (as opposed to facts) form the bulk of the data supplied to voters in a referendum?
We need both. "Facts" in this context are perhaps better described as "claims". We need to be aware that claims might even be true but also that they will have been selected, spun, interpreted to suit the argument of the claimant. Again this comes back to the requirement of critical assessment on the part of the voter.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 11:38
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
It's interesting that many Remainers seem to feel cheated in that they believe many people voted Brexit on the basis of lies they were spun. Now, I don't know how many other brexiters feel this way, but I felt perfectly aware when politicians on my side of the argument were being less than truthful. But just because people make fallacious arguments in favour of some particular point of view doesn't necessarily negate the validity of that argument.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 12:48
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
We need both. "Facts" in this context are perhaps better described as "claims". We need to be aware that claims might even be true but also that they will have been selected, spun, interpreted to suit the argument of the claimant. Again this comes back to the requirement of critical assessment on the part of the voter.
The point being that in a referendum, the proposition should be fully detailed and costed, so the "claims" can be verified. Or that the proposition should be a matter of law that is not being voted on for its economic implications. An example would be the votes on legalising marijuana in various US states - I doubt that many people are now bickering about the potential cost of legal marijuana, it's the fact that it's legal that matters.

In other words, don't have referendums on issues that will result in more arguments after than before.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:06.