Should there be A EU REFERENDUM

[beorhthelm]

Yes I am and you and Westdene are both making my point for me with the Swiss stuff. Either you have a system where you have referenda on everything (and low turnout on fairly irrelevant general elections) or you have a general election with a higher turnout where the protagonists cover every issue in their manifesto.

and so end up with a situation where all three parties broadly agree to something and conspire to not allow the electorate any real say on the matter. i cant say i want referendums on every policy, but when it comes to a substantial matter, affecting the core of a country's politics and future, it deserves a referendum. iirc nearly every EU nation had a vote on the EU constitution/lisbon treaty and also on entring the euro.

 

[beorhthelm]

I always thought that a referendum was a waste of time, as anyone who has done any research realises that the economic implications of leaving the EU would be so negative that immigration would be a minor secondary issue. Who would want to come to a country with no economic growth ? Ever wondered why there is a lack of respected economists backing UKIP while all other parties can wheel out their experts ?

not backup UKIP doesnt mean there arent economist and business leader arguing either for exit from EU or renegotiation. i cant recall where i read it now, but surprisingly 50% over all the population across EU want their country to renegotiate, only a couple are strongly in favor of further integration and poitical union. hence the aborted EU constitution that the european public rejected. the economist back this view as far as i can tell. the debate needs to move on and grow up from a simplist in/out.

 

[Grombleton]

I tend to find that it's only the pro-EU people that object to a referendum - presumably because they think it would back pulling out ?

Nope, i'm also pro-EU and would welcome a referendum.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

the sooner its cleared up the better regardless of how the vote went IMHO ........... 2017 YOU'RE HAVING A LAUGH
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

We need a referendum in order to vote YES to get out, then we can close the borders to the EU and have proper managed migration, if this is your issue.
There is no other way to deal with the issue. This is where the EU has got it so wrong. You should be able to say who comes in to your country.

I should imagine if Labour get in, they will be open to further immigration and even closer integration. In the end your voice will never get heard because the ones who Labour let in will be the ones who inevitabely vote Labour back in time and time again. I can see their plan already.

sold our soul to Brussels, that can't be right ,shame the do gooders can't see that , how would you feel if a foreign person came up to you and told you that what you'd been doing as per norm was no longer allowed in this country, A question it , B say sorry and accept it
regards
DR

 

[Eeyore]

I don't think there is any turning back on a referendum, and what with the Scotland vote coming up, there could be some major changes in the UK quite soon. I hope that Scotland stays within the Union, and that we stay within Europe.

This is not to say that our relationship with Europe (the political model) shouldn't change. Too many layers of undemocratic decision making, and much enforced ignorance about the process of its governance exist.

Ironically, it was Mrs Thatcher who started the present process of legislation making back in 1985, when she signed the SEA.

 

[Gwylan]

No. Why have a general election to elect who you prefer based on a balanced bundle of policies and then hold a referendum on one of those policies alone? Why can't we have a referendum on keeping the NHS public or renationalising the railways?

Totally agree. I'm in favour of an EU referendum but think we should have one on those very two subjects too - preferably all at the same time.

I reckon there'd be a massive vote to keep the NHS public, a narrow vote to stay in the EU and nationalisation would be too close to call.

.... there hasn't really been the opportunity to vote on our membership of the EU at a general election.

Labour in the 80s favoured withdrawal from the EU - they got their lowest ever GE votes when this was their policy.

What wasn't included in the referendum was the massive Brussels bureaucracy making laws that affect us, the Single European Act, the Lisbon Treaty, the European Court of Human Rights, Maastricht, etc. - all of these were foisted on us later, without any consultation.

The ECHR was founded before the EEC and we were signed up member nearly 20 years before the 1975 referendum. In fact, the main driver behind the ECHR was the UK and most of the treaty was drafted by Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe (sp?)

 

[Baldseagull]

No - Governments are elected to make difficult decisions, based upon more data and information than most of us have the time or inclination to study....

Why do they get it wrong so often then?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Totally agree. I'm in favour of an EU referendum but think we should have one on those very two subjects too - preferably all at the same time.

I reckon there'd be a massive vote to keep the NHS public, a narrow vote to stay in the EU and nationalisation would be too close to call.



Labour in the 80s favoured withdrawal from the EU - they got their lowest ever GE votes when this was their policy.



The ECHR was founded before the EEC and we were signed up member nearly 20 years before the 1975 referendum. In fact, the main driver behind the ECHR was the UK and most of the treaty was drafted by Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe (sp?)

Quite - and as it is under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe and has been signed in to UK law by a democratically elected UK government you can't just leave it however much you want your human rights to be abused.

 

[RexCathedra]

I don't want reasonable parties to start pandering to a small alienated minority with ill thought-out views based on mythology, fear and narrow mindedness.

Go ahead and attack the entire premise behind our fine, American, Republican party, why don't ya?

 

[The Spanish]

Yes I am and you and Westdene are both making my point for me with the Swiss stuff. Either you have a system where you have referenda on everything (and low turnout on fairly irrelevant general elections) or you have a general election with a higher turnout where the protagonists cover every issue in their manifesto.

exactly. lets go down the referenda route then. this conceit that our electoral system is the last word in sophistication is bizarre.

even with a lower turnout you would probably get a more representative result on major policies. but that would mean the minority who currently dictate social and cultural norms would be flipped. and as you can see from the last few days on here, they don't like that one bit. they are not going to let the general public get their way if they can help it.

 

[Buzzer]

Go ahead and attack the entire premise behind our fine, American, Republican party, why don't ya?

That would be the party that abolished slavery in your country wouldn't it?

 

[RexCathedra]

The Republican party abolished slavery in 1865. Of that entity the present neo-Confederate iiteration shares nothing but its name.

 

[The Spanish]

No. Because the general public don't know enough about Europe the pro's and con's and what it would mean to be in or out of it. As a result it will simple be a competition on who can appeal to the masses best with emotional arguments and soundbites. It would not be about whether it is actually better to be in the EU or not.

so what you are saying is you don't believe in democracy, more a benign dictatorship?

 

[sahel]

Go ahead and attack the entire premise behind our fine, American, Republican party, why don't ya?

I read a persuasive article recently that the current Republican party with its tea party leaning will never again win an election because of the demographics being so much against them. Lacking democratic power they will become obstructive and destructive. Same applies to UKIP/right wing tories

 

[Buzzer]

The Republican party abolished slavery in 1865. Of that entity the present neo-Confederate iiteration shares nothing but its name.

Neo-confederate? Oh my.

Well that as maybe but your comment was:

Go ahead and attack the entire premise behind our fine, American, Republican party, why don't ya?

It rather suggests that you've got the 'premise' of that party wrong.

 

[Gwylan]

No. I think there should be a referendum only when the public have been educated about the EU from an unbiased source.

Can you name a single unbiased source?

 

[Buzzer]

No. I think there should be a referendum only when the public have been educated about the EU from an unbiased source. Only then can they make an informed decision on it for themselves instead of being told what to think by newspapers and politicians.

Dear oh dear. People not being trusted to vote in elections. Goddamn that pesky democracy and people nor voting how you want them to.

 

[RexCathedra]

I read a persuasive article recently that the current Republican party with its tea party leaning will never again win an election because of the demographics being so much against them. Lacking democratic power they will become obstructive and destructive. Same applies to UKIP/right wing tories

I would like to embrace wholeheartedly the theory that our GOP is demographically doomed, but I'm not optimistic.
A political party premised on appeals to the worst in people has a lot of appeals, a lot of different appeals, to work with.

Stuart Hall -- not the BBC presenter with an... interesting... social life, but the social scientist -- spent half his life trying to figure out why there was a working-class Thatcherism in the first place.

 

[Buzzer]

I am sure you can find academics and such who can produce information without giving in to bias. Especially if it is produced and checked by several people.



Not at all. If people want out we should leave. If people want in we should stay. I just don't think it means much if the vote is produced by people who don't actually know much at all about the question they are being asked.

No more than say Labour's policy regarding the setting of interest rates or the Tories' position on quantitative easing?

I bet you that most people vote without even glancing at the manifestos and then doing independent research. I never have. Have you?