Issues relating to the EU referendum

[Triggaaar]

How would we get rid of it? I've never had a say on it....

You've never had a say on leaving the EU either, but people made it known it was an issue, a political party added the option to their manifesto, so we're getting the vote. If the majority of people wanted to get rid of the monarchy, then we'd get politicians preaching it and they'd win votes etc. Maybe that's what Corbyn will do. It's ultimately up to us.

 

[Buzzer]

No, it's not, I'm saying having a monarchy and a first past the post system are both undemocratic.

Nonsense. We have a constitutional monarchy who do nothing more than rubber-stamp the laws enacted by Parliament, in theory the monarch can refuse to sign but it has never happened, neither will it ever happen. To all intents and purposes, the monarch has no control over our lives. The monarchy in the UK acts as a Head of State but a State where all laws are passed by Parliament.

FPTP system has its flaws but then again so does every other form of voting. It may not be the best in your opinion but to say that it is 'undemocratic' is patently untrue.

 

[brightn'ove]

FPTP system has its flaws but then again so does every other form of voting. It may not be the best in your opinion but to say that it is 'undemocratic' is patently untrue.

It is undemocratic in a sense though as not all votes are equal.

 

[Buzzer]

It is undemocratic in a sense though as not all votes are equal.

No isn't. 'Democratic' means rule by popular vote ergo 'undemocratic' means a system of ruling not by popular vote but by other means. FPTP is clearlya way of counting popular votes and therefore it's democratic. You might not think it the fairest but it most certainly IS democratic.

 

[Notters]

No isn't. 'Democratic' means rule by popular vote ergo 'undemocratic' means a system of ruling not by popular vote but by other means. FPTP is clearlya way of counting popular votes and therefore it's democratic. You might not think it the fairest but it most certainly IS democratic.

That's like saying "counting all labour, green, conservative and liberal democrat votes as conservative votes is a way of counting and therefore it's democratic". As stated above, a lot of people's votes don't count for diddly squat and therefore it's undemocratic. I've never seen any evidence that the more representative systems used across Europe are anything other than a good thing.

 

[beorhthelm]

It is undemocratic in a sense though as not all votes are equal.

they are equal, just people dont seem to understand they are voting for their local MP, not directly one government, party or leader. other systems also have people who didnt vote for the party(s) in power, doesn't make it undemocratic.

 

[Buzzer]

That's like saying "counting all labour, green, conservative and liberal democrat votes as conservative votes is a way of counting and therefore it's democratic". As stated above, a lot of people's votes don't count for diddly squat and therefore it's undemocratic. I've never seen any evidence that the more representative systems used across Europe are anything other than a good thing.

Eh? That's nothing like I've said and your argument about people's votes not counting therefore it's not democratic is not true. That's a fundamental part of democracy where the popular vote holds sway and the less popular vote doesn't get what they want. I fully take on board your issues with the fairness of FPTP but it IS a valid form of counting popular votes and it is democratic.

 

[RyFish]

Sovereignty.

The Buck should stop at Westminster.

Which particular laws have the EU imposed that you dislike?

 

[5ways]

I'd like to find more source and info on a 2nd referendum.

Out of the corner of my ear I (mis)heard on the radio that Boris had mentioned it. It was moved on from before I'd focused in on it.

Can anyone find some source or commentary on this ?

Check the Guardian's live-blog today. It has been ruled out. Totally and completely - there is no round 2.

 

[beorhthelm]

Check the Guardian's live-blog today. It has been ruled out. Totally and completely - there is no round 2.

with respect to the Guardian, they are promoting only an opinion and one that suits them. they cannot say there would not be another proposed agreement, treaty, whatever, no one can. what we can say is that its possible, there is nothing to prevent that occurring.

 

[Grombleton]

The EU is not there to serve the citizens, it's not there even to serve the ambitions of the power-hungry politicians. The European Union together with the European Bank and other financial institutions are there to increase the already vast profits of the multinational corporations and elite bankers/banking families (Rothchild's, for example). They are using and bribing the Eurocrats and politicians to further their own financial interests.

These greedy people are already buying off and bribing the politicians in our national parliament but at least, the electorate can vote these politicians out. The EU is full of unelected officials who are largely unaccountable to the people, so I say we need to get OUT of the EU and bring back the decision making and power to our own parliament and our own people. Our nation should, at last, shape its own future, its own border control and immigration policy and determine its own economic destiny.

People have asked and you've not answered - what evidence do you have to back up your claims that politicians are being bribed?

 

[jgmcdee]

I don't find FPTP democratic in terms of my personal representation but surely that pales in comparison to the House of Lords. I can't find any numbers, but do wonder how many bills have been enacted without the Lords changing at least something.

 

[5ways]

with respect to the Guardian, they are promoting only an opinion and one that suits them. they cannot say there would not be another proposed agreement, treaty, whatever, no one can. what we can say is that its possible, there is nothing to prevent that occurring.

Sorry should have included a link. They were referencing No 10. 11:58.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0f2fd18cafe92#block-56caf44ce4b0f2fd18cafe92

"No 10 rules out second referendum after possible Brexit vote

The Number 10 lobby briefing is over. The prime minister’s spokeswoman used it to confirm that, if Britain votes to leave the EU, David Cameron will start the process that leads to Britain leaving the union. This involves invoking article 50 of the Lisbon treaty.

— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt)
February 22, 2016
No 10 dismisses @odysseanproject call for 2nd #euref: PM will trigger article 50 exit clause in Lisbon Treaty after Leave vote 1/2

— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt)
February 22, 2016
Earliest opportunity for PM to trigger article 50 is day after #EUref at scheduled @EUCouncil on 24 June"

 

[5ways]

I don't find FPTP democratic in terms of my personal representation but surely that pales in comparison to the House of Lords. I can't find any numbers, but do wonder how many bills have been enacted without the Lords changing at least something.

It is somewhat perverse to talk about the EU being undemocratic when there are hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It is somewhat perverse to talk about the EU being undemocratic when there are hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

To be fair, many of them can't stay awake to make any meaningful decisions...

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Sorry should have included a link. They were referencing No 10. 11:58.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0f2fd18cafe92#block-56caf44ce4b0f2fd18cafe92

"No 10 rules out second referendum after possible Brexit vote

The Number 10 lobby briefing is over. The prime minister’s spokeswoman used it to confirm that, if Britain votes to leave the EU, David Cameron will start the process that leads to Britain leaving the union. This involves invoking article 50 of the Lisbon treaty.

— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt)
February 22, 2016
No 10 dismisses @odysseanproject call for 2nd #euref: PM will trigger article 50 exit clause in Lisbon Treaty after Leave vote 1/2

— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt)
February 22, 2016
Earliest opportunity for PM to trigger article 50 is day after #EUref at scheduled @EUCouncil on 24 June"

Ties in nicely with what I posted on one of the other threads about this :

The Constitution Unit in the Department of Political Science at University College London is the UK's leading research body on constitutional change.

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/0...te-for-brexit/

Headline Paragraph :

"The EU referendum could be held as early as June so clarity is needed about what will happen in the event of a vote to leave. In this post Alan Renwick explains Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which sets out the procedure for leaving the EU. Under it a second in/out referendum of the type floated by Boris Johnson among others is not possible. Anybody suggesting that voters can vote to ‘leave’ safe in the knowledge that they can later change their minds is either playing with fire or manipulating voters disingenuously."

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Right. Time for Mejona the DULLARD to pipe up.

I don't ENJOY politics. I'll never enter a "debtate" (a technical term for two people with differing views arguing when, ultimately, neither of them is going to change the others opinions, thus making the argument pointless in my view) but I will always use my vote and do as much research into the topic as possible to feel my vote is a true reflection of my views.

Where I'm struggling is, in an election I have a set of promises from each party to base a decision on. Now, I'm not stupid and I know people don't always fulfil said promises, but I MUST base my decision on those otherwise I'm just guessing.

In a referendum, I'm struggling to know the FACTS. What are the DEFINITIVES of either staying or going. All I seem to read is opinions so far. "we will be far better staying" vs "no, we're better off leaving".

So, in summary, I don't really understand it.

That's my main issue.....

 

[Triggaaar]

"No 10 rules out second referendum after possible Brexit vote

Which means a grand total of nothing.

No. 10 is campaigning to stay IN, so of course they're going to say that there's no possibility of a second referendum. But it's widely expected that DC will have to resign if we vote OUT, so it won't be up to him anyway.

 

[Triggaaar]

I will always use my vote and do as much research into the topic as possible to feel my vote is a true reflection of my views.

Where I'm struggling is, in an election I have a set of promises from each party to base a decision on. Now, I'm not stupid and I know people don't always fulfil said promises, but I MUST base my decision on those otherwise I'm just guessing.

In a referendum, I'm struggling to know the FACTS. What are the DEFINITIVES of either staying or going. All I seem to read is opinions so far. "we will be far better staying" vs "no, we're better off leaving".

So, in summary, I don't really understand it.

Same as the rest of us then.

It's actually quite similar to an election, because both main parties in an election tell us the economy will do better with them in charge, but there are no FACTS to prove which one is right.

IMO your best bet is to watch the speeches from the opposing parties, ignore the fact you hate pretty much every one of them, and do your best to pull the 1% of facts that exist in the mass of BS they preach.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It is somewhat perverse to talk about the EU being undemocratic when there are hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Tut tut

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

At least we have a chance of removing one of these supposedly undemocratic institutions and the Parliament act reasserts the primacy of the elected chamber in the UK.