May's "ordinary working people"?

[ahinton]

Maybe it might be advisable to get back to the thread topic otherwise hackles about too much of the "wrong" kind of political argument might get raised...

[Richard Barrett]

Regarding referenda, many people (including those politicians for whom it's expedient to express this opinion) seem to hold that once a "decision" has been made it should be stuck to, and that there's something fundamentally wrong with continuing to hold referenda on the same question as time goes by. Why? It's the idea of making a once-and-for-all-time decision that's wrong here. If there's evidence that many people have changed their stance on Brexit since last summer let there be another referendum. Of course it would have been better not to have held one in the first place, since it was nothing more than a stupid and clumsy and failed power-grabbing gamble on Cameron's part anyway. But since there has been (and the same applied to Scottish independence) surely whether there's another one should depend on the same principle of democracy that enables a governing party to be voted out of office every few years if the majority of people decide that's what is needed. I should say that I don't have a lot of faith in this kind of democracy, but to conceive of referenda as somehow on a completely different level of validity than elections seems to me wilfully inconsistent.

[ahinton]

[duplicate: deleted]

[ahinton]

Regarding referenda, many people (including those politicians for whom it's expedient to express this opinion) seem to hold that once a "decision" has been made it should be stuck to, and that there's something fundamentally wrong with continuing to hold referenda on the same question as time goes by. Why? It's the idea of making a once-and-for-all-time decision that's wrong here. If there's evidence that many people have changed their stance on Brexit since last summer let there be another referendum. Of course it would have been better not to have held one in the first place, since it was nothing more than a stupid and clumsy and failed power-grabbing gamble on Cameron's part anyway. But since there has been (and the same applied to Scottish independence) surely whether there's another one should depend on the same principle of democracy that enables a governing party to be voted out of office every few years if the majority of people decide that's what is needed. I should say that I don't have a lot of faith in this kind of democracy, but to conceive of referenda as somehow on a completely different level of validity than elections seems to me wilfully inconsistent.

Agreed on all counts.

Scotland voted to remain part of an UK that was an EU member state; I'm therefore not at all surprised that it might consider holding another one since such fundamental goalposts have since been moved in Westmonster.

[aeolium]

Regarding referenda, many people (including those politicians for whom it's expedient to express this opinion) seem to hold that once a "decision" has been made it should be stuck to, and that there's something fundamentally wrong with continuing to hold referenda on the same question as time goes by. Why? It's the idea of making a once-and-for-all-time decision that's wrong here. If there's evidence that many people have changed their stance on Brexit since last summer let there be another referendum. Of course it would have been better not to have held one in the first place, since it was nothing more than a stupid and clumsy and failed power-grabbing gamble on Cameron's part anyway. But since there has been (and the same applied to Scottish independence) surely whether there's another one should depend on the same principle of democracy that enables a governing party to be voted out of office every few years if the majority of people decide that's what is needed. I should say that I don't have a lot of faith in this kind of democracy, but to conceive of referenda as somehow on a completely different level of validity than elections seems to me wilfully inconsistent.

I agree with the essence of what you say here, about there being nothing permanent about referendum decisions, but I disagree with your view that it was wrong to hold a referendum on Europe at all. It seemed to me that there had been a growing pressure, over a number of years, for such a vote which simply would have continued. The European elections in 2014 were a tell-tale sign, with UKIP coming first on a PR vote explicitly about Europe. All the major parties had committed, under various circumstances (e.g. treaty change) to holding referenda on Europe - an in/out vote had formerly been the LibDem position. That Cameron felt forced into his manifesto promise, simply as a tactic to see off the UKIP challenge and discontent on the right of his party, is just another reflection of that pressure. And I don't see anything at all wrong with referenda on constitutional issues - what, after all, is a more important question than what institutions govern you? This is not the kind of question that can be dealt with via a general election, where all kinds of other policy issues are in play.

I agree completely about another Scottish independence referendum. The nature of Scotland's relationship with the UK has fundamentally changed since the last referendum and it is perfectly valid for the Scottish government to call for a fresh referendum to settle the question again. There would be complicated issues as to the Scottish relationship with the EU to resolve (currency, application for membership etc) but it is for those campaigning for independence to provide answers to those questions.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Maybe it might be advisable to get back to the thread topic otherwise hackles about too much of the "wrong" kind of political argument might get raised...

Yes.

[Lat-Literal]

Regarding referenda, many people (including those politicians for whom it's expedient to express this opinion) seem to hold that once a "decision" has been made it should be stuck to, and that there's something fundamentally wrong with continuing to hold referenda on the same question as time goes by. Why? It's the idea of making a once-and-for-all-time decision that's wrong here. If there's evidence that many people have changed their stance on Brexit since last summer let there be another referendum. Of course it would have been better not to have held one in the first place, since it was nothing more than a stupid and clumsy and failed power-grabbing gamble on Cameron's part anyway. But since there has been (and the same applied to Scottish independence) surely whether there's another one should depend on the same principle of democracy that enables a governing party to be voted out of office every few years if the majority of people decide that's what is needed. I should say that I don't have a lot of faith in this kind of democracy, but to conceive of referenda as somehow on a completely different level of validity than elections seems to me wilfully inconsistent.

How many would it need for the reintroduction of capital punishment?

One, two, three?

Anyhow, if there is one and it is against you think we should have one regularly or something along those lines.

Nice.

Maybe it might be advisable to get back to the thread topic otherwise hackles about too much of the "wrong" kind of political argument might get raised...

Yes.

Ah, some are off to the gym or about to do a spot of voluntary service.

[Beef Oven!]

Regarding referenda, many people (including those politicians for whom it's expedient to express this opinion) seem to hold that once a "decision" has been made it should be stuck to, and that there's something fundamentally wrong with continuing to hold referenda on the same question as time goes by. Why? It's the idea of making a once-and-for-all-time decision that's wrong here. If there's evidence that many people have changed their stance on Brexit since last summer let there be another referendum. Of course it would have been better not to have held one in the first place, since it was nothing more than a stupid and clumsy and failed power-grabbing gamble on Cameron's part anyway. But since there has been (and the same applied to Scottish independence) surely whether there's another one should depend on the same principle of democracy that enables a governing party to be voted out of office every few years if the majority of people decide that's what is needed. I should say that I don't have a lot of faith in this kind of democracy, but to conceive of referenda as somehow on a completely different level of validity than elections seems to me wilfully inconsistent.

1) What do you see as the "decision"? The outcome of the referendum, or the government's consideration of the outcome and subsequent formulation of policy in relation to the EU’s membership and decision to leave? It’s an important distinction.

2) Referendums, many would say, are one-off democratic tools, that are used to gauge the nation’s opinion on an important matter where there is no clear or obvious position, or where there is a significant split. e.g. the death penalty, wholesale electoral reform and the like. Having taken the poll, the government can then take an informed and democratically sound view on the policy it will implement regarding the matter in question. In the case of the EU referendum that’s been done. Should there be any desired change to this position, the appropriate course of action would be for a political party to stand in the next general election on a manifesto headed by a policy to overturn the existing policy and seek re-entry; rather than have another referendum. After all, those that have been calling for another referendum have been doing it pretty much since the outcome of the referendum was given, and to date only eight months have gone by. It has been repeated often that we Brexiters have changed our mind, but there is no reliable evidence.

3) I agree with you concerning Cameron’s motivation in calling the referendum, but separately there were also very strong reasons to do so, anyway. The country is properly split on this matter and has, arguably been so for many years.

4) I’m not sure that you are right in calling this a 'kind of democracy' and suggesting that anyone is comparing referendums to general elections. They are simply two different aspects of the democratic process.

5) The Scottish situation is more complicated, IMV. I believe that it was clear that not only were In voters voting to remain in a UK that would be part of the EU, but furthermore that in voting In, they would be increasing their chances of remaining in the EU. Technically, no promises have been broken as there could be no guarantees on such things. But I do feel for the 1.6 million people in Scotland who voted to remain, in the wider EU referendum.

[Beef Oven!]

Yes.

We’re all informed, experienced, educated and intelligent adults - the discussion is very interesting and going well.

[Beef Oven!]

Ah, some are off to the gym or about to do a spot of voluntary service.

That’s very similar to what I said yesterday (work not service). Are you referring to me? What’s the meaning of your comment?

[ahinton]

I disagree with your view that it was wrong to hold a referendum on Europe at all. It seemed to me that there had been a growing pressure, over a number of years, for such a vote which simply would have continued.

Where is the evidence for a majority desire on the part of the UK electorate to have a vote on whether or not UK should continue with its EU membership? And, perhaps more importantly still, why a referendum and not a debate and vote in Parliament?

The European elections in 2014 were a tell-tale sign, with UKIP coming first on a PR vote explicitly about Europe. All the major parties had committed, under various circumstances (e.g. treaty change) to holding referenda on Europe - an in/out vote had formerly been the LibDem position. That Cameron felt forced into his manifesto promise, simply as a tactic to see off the UKIP challenge and discontent on the right of his party, is just another reflection of that pressure.

I think that the risk of UKIP seizing the kind of power that would have worried other parties was woefully exaggerated, as we now know anyway albeit with the benefit of hindsight; just one MP's hardly going to turn Parliament upside down. Whilst I agree that this perceived risk was what persuaded Cameron (and no other party leader, it has to be said) to include that referendum in his party manifesto, it is abundantly clear that the Tories had very little to fear from UKIP. If the death penalty were to be considered for reintroduction into UK, it would be debated and voted on in Parliament by the people who ought to know their stuff and who we elect and pay to do their Parliamentary work; if there really had to be a vote on UK's continued EU membership (which I do not believe is supported by evidence), then it should have been subjected to Parliamentary debate and vote. As it wasn't, one outcome of the result of the opinion poll (which is, after all, all that it actually was) is that UK has an unelected Prime Minister whose working people are the thread topic.

And I don't see anything at all wrong with referenda on constitutional issues - what, after all, is a more important question than what institutions govern you? This is not the kind of question that can be dealt with via a general election, where all kinds of other policy issues are in play.

The problem with them is that tens of millions of people vote in them, of whom many do not know and are not told enough about the issues and possible outcomes, whereas MPs are at least supposed to be paid experts and there are only 600 of them.

I agree completely about another Scottish independence referendum. The nature of Scotland's relationship with the UK has fundamentally changed since the last referendum and it is perfectly valid for the Scottish government to call for a fresh referendum to settle the question again. There would be complicated issues as to the Scottish relationship with the EU to resolve (currency, application for membership etc) but it is for those campaigning for independence to provide answers to those questions.

I'm with you on this. It's a pity that there needs to be one but Westmonster's moving of the goalposts has necessitated it.

[Richard Barrett]

1) What do you see as the “decision"? The outcome of the referendum, or the government's consideration of the outcome and subsequent formulation of policy in relation to the EU’s membership and decision to leave? It’s an important distinction.

True. I was referring to the outcome of the referendum. As I implied previously, the government would undoubtedly have mismanaged whatever direction was taken.

Should there be any desired change to this position, the appropriate course of action would be for a political party to stand in the next general election on a manifesto headed by a policy to overturn the existing policy and seek re-entry; rather than have another referendum. After all, those that have been calling for another referendum have been doing it pretty much since the outcome of the referendum was given, and to date only eight months have gone by. It has been repeated often that we Brexiters have changed our mind, but there is no reliable evidence.

There is certainly evidence that some have changed their mind, possibly enough to swing the result in the other direction. (Bear in mind that personally as a ballot-spoiler I have no commitment to either outcome.) Holding another election is not going to change anything in this case, since no major party is going to run on that policy as far as I can see.

[Beef Oven!]

Holding another election is not going to change anything in this case, since no major party is going to run on that policy as far as I can see.

Shouldn’t Farron’s Lid Dems?

Wouldn’t it be odd not to?

[Richard Barrett]

Shouldn’t Farron’s Lid Dems?

I said "major party"!

[Beef Oven!]

I said "major party"!

harsh