DS Forums

 
 

The End of the Referendum?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-12-2016, 13:10
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
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.
If we are to believe some remainers this is the first UK election campaign ever where politicians have been creative with statistics or bent arguments to suit their point of view.

Some of us remember 2010 when Cameron and Clegg said we wouldn't need to make any cuts - looking at the nations finances we knew they were lying but they still got elected anyway as the alternative was even more dishonest.

If this was a reason to negate the result on 23 June then we might as well reverse every general election result for the last 30 years!

We did what we always do - weighed up the arguments and the BS and then cast our votes. Maybe the voters aren't as stupid as some remainers - but not most - think they are.
MARTYM8 is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-12-2016, 13:51
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
If we are to believe some remainers this is the first UK election campaign ever where politicians have been creative with statistics or bent arguments to suit their point of view.

Some of us remember 2010 when Cameron and Clegg said we wouldn't need to make any cuts - looking at the nations finances we knew they were lying but they still got elected anyway as the alternative was even more dishonest.

If this was a reason to negate the result on 23 June then we might as well reverse every general election result for the last 30 years!

We did what we always do - weighed up the arguments and the BS and then cast our votes. Maybe the voters aren't as stupid as some remainers - but not most - think they are.
Good points.
My main concern is that acceptance of lies or BS as you call them is a pernicious route to take.
My view is that lies devalue the democratic process. We should demand better from our elected representatives.
Personally I would make them personally responsible for broken promises - "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS?"
I would also make it illegal to enact changes to public services unless there is proof that it will be for the better ...... but ignorant politicians acting out their whims is a whole other problem.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 13:54
fefster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,840
I think it will be a long. cold winter before the UK (including Scotland) will be given a referendum ever again.
fefster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 13:57
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
I think it will be a long. cold winter before the UK (including Scotland) will be given a referendum ever again.
This one has been so divisive, so badly prepared, so disgracefully fought, and so open to legal queries ..... I'm inclined to agree.
alan29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 14:05
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
This one has been so divisive, so badly prepared, so disgracefully fought, and so open to legal queries ..... I'm inclined to agree.
It was only ever held to appease a bunch of angry populists / protesters and in the (mistaken) belief there was zero chance of it being passed.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 14:08
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,311
If we are to believe some remainers this is the first UK election campaign ever where politicians have been creative with statistics or bent arguments to suit their point of view.

Some of us remember 2010 when Cameron and Clegg said we wouldn't need to make any cuts - looking at the nations finances we knew they were lying but they still got elected anyway as the alternative was even more dishonest.

If this was a reason to negate the result on 23 June then we might as well reverse every general election result for the last 30 years!

We did what we always do - weighed up the arguments and the BS and then cast our votes. Maybe the voters aren't as stupid as some remainers - but not most - think they are.

The referendum was not an election after which the result could be reversed after a few years. Is was a far-reaching decision based in a tissue of lies and deceipt. If you were content to accept that you must have been, sadly, either very naïve or just plain bonkers.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 14:25
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
I think it will be a long. cold winter before the UK (including Scotland) will be given a referendum ever again.
Well when you consider we never had any referendums during the 80's, 90's and 00's yet had 2 (3 if you are Scottish) in the space of 5 years. Infact according to wikipedia there have only been 3 UK wide referendums and 2 of them were on the membership of the EEC/EU.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 18:11
Andrew1954
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,994
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.
Except those you win, eh?

How do you cost the uncostable? Sovereignty, security, influence, the desire (or not) to be amongst those many nations not part of a supranational quasi-sate like the EU? The list goes on and on. Many if not most of these things are subjective ... not quantifiable.
That's even before we get onto the simply unknowable costs or benefits of being in or out of the EU.

If the electorate can't be asked to make such a decision then by extension neither can those we elect. The logical conclusion of your position is that the UK electorate nor it's government should ever have been allowed to take us into the EU in the first place. In or out it was, is and always will be largely uncostable, and in the final analysis a political decision, subjective in nature whoever mad it - elected politicians or the electorate.
Andrew1954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 18:13
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
Well when you consider we never had any referendums during the 80's, 90's and 00's yet had 2 (3 if you are Scottish) in the space of 5 years. Infact according to wikipedia there have only been 3 UK wide referendums and 2 of them were on the membership of the EEC/EU.
We had referendums to introduce the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations and the Mayor of London in the 1990s
MARTYM8 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 18:47
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
Except those you win, eh?

How do you cost the uncostable? Sovereignty, security, influence, the desire (or not) to be amongst those many nations not part of a supranational quasi-sate like the EU? The list goes on and on. Many if not most of these things are subjective ... not quantifiable.
That's even before we get onto the simply unknowable costs or benefits of being in or out of the EU.

If the electorate can't be asked to make such a decision then by extension neither can those we elect. The logical conclusion of your position is that the UK electorate nor it's government should ever have been allowed to take us into the EU in the first place. In or out it was, is and always will be largely uncostable, and in the final analysis a political decision, subjective in nature whoever mad it - elected politicians or the electorate.
Fair point, but the idea being discussed is whether more policy decisions should be taken by referendum in the future, and what the EU referendum shows is that putting a major issue to the vote without having a clear idea of the possible outcomes causes problems. It could be that other propositions could be decided without the kind of acrimony that this one has generated, which is why I gave the legalisation of marijuana as an example. Would people on both sides of the debate spend months debating the issue after the vote if we voted to legalise weed?
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2016, 19:29
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Fair point, but the idea being discussed is whether more policy decisions should be taken by referendum in the future, and what the EU referendum shows is that putting a major issue to the vote without having a clear idea of the possible outcomes causes problems. It could be that other propositions could be decided without the kind of acrimony that this one has generated, which is why I gave the legalisation of marijuana as an example. Would people on both sides of the debate spend months debating the issue after the vote if we voted to legalise weed?
Yes they might if the result of the vote was close and groups were able to raise legal objections to whichever way the vote went. Most especially as regards the controls that would be enforced if it was legalised.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:05.