Spam & Scams0 min ago
The Will Of The People?
It’s philosophy time, folks.
In a question yesterday AOG asked whether there should be a referendum to bring back Capital Punishment. One answer (from dannyk13) said “It would be waste of time due to all political parties being against it…”
Leaving aside the specific issue (let’s say the question was “Should we have a referendum to introduce a compulsory 10% tax on Jelly Babies”), do you think that’s s satisfactory state of affairs? I’ve trivialised my question deliberately to avoid a debate on the merits of a tax on Jelly Babies (because, unfortunately, AOG’s question descended into a debate on Capital Punishment, not whether a referendum should be held). But it has a serious slant. Let’s assume that a vast majority of the electorate wanted a tax on Jelly Babies. However, all of the political parties are against it. Do we just let that situation prevail? Do we just allow 650 MPs to overrule the wishes of 45m voters just because their parties’ policies do not support it?
Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU (strangely, a question only raised after the result of the referendum - which 80% of MPs supported being held - was published). The majority of MPs (and all the main political parties bar UKIP) seem to be against it. But the majority of people who voted are in favour of it. Like my tax on Jelly Babies, do we just leave it at that? Or, on a matter of the sovereignty of the UK, do the wishes of the people trump party politics?
In a question yesterday AOG asked whether there should be a referendum to bring back Capital Punishment. One answer (from dannyk13) said “It would be waste of time due to all political parties being against it…”
Leaving aside the specific issue (let’s say the question was “Should we have a referendum to introduce a compulsory 10% tax on Jelly Babies”), do you think that’s s satisfactory state of affairs? I’ve trivialised my question deliberately to avoid a debate on the merits of a tax on Jelly Babies (because, unfortunately, AOG’s question descended into a debate on Capital Punishment, not whether a referendum should be held). But it has a serious slant. Let’s assume that a vast majority of the electorate wanted a tax on Jelly Babies. However, all of the political parties are against it. Do we just let that situation prevail? Do we just allow 650 MPs to overrule the wishes of 45m voters just because their parties’ policies do not support it?
Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU (strangely, a question only raised after the result of the referendum - which 80% of MPs supported being held - was published). The majority of MPs (and all the main political parties bar UKIP) seem to be against it. But the majority of people who voted are in favour of it. Like my tax on Jelly Babies, do we just leave it at that? Or, on a matter of the sovereignty of the UK, do the wishes of the people trump party politics?
Answers
Sir David Attenborough undermines his own argument. he says it should be left to the MP's but these MP's are the people chosen by the electorate who are not wise enough to vote.
01:03 Wed 02nd Nov 2016
As regards Brexit, I understand that MP's ( of all Parties ) want a say in the conditions under which we leave the EU, not whether we leave or not.
I see this as entirely sensible. Brexit will be the most complicated and important action a British Parliament has taken in my lifetime.
Is it so unreasonable that Mrs May should allow the Houses of Parliament a say in its progress, and a vote every now and then.
Isn't that what having a Parliament is all about ?
I see this as entirely sensible. Brexit will be the most complicated and important action a British Parliament has taken in my lifetime.
Is it so unreasonable that Mrs May should allow the Houses of Parliament a say in its progress, and a vote every now and then.
Isn't that what having a Parliament is all about ?
Until it proved to be an unworkable system, the will of the people should prevail and the tax applied. That is democracy that the country laughably claims to be enacting. However I would expect the arguments against such a tax, in the prior debate, to prevail and the vote not be in favour. The politicians are there to ensure the will is enacted.
As regards Brexit, I understand that MPs (of the remain group) want a say in the conditions under which we leave the EU, not whether we leave or not, in order to continually thwart progress and try to pervert the course of the leave decision. In that case we already have a government who is there to enact the will of the people.
In an ideal world folk could also agree to conditions but in an ulterior motive world I suspect the system can not work with that. But in any case the conditions of leaving are more or less non-existent so there is no approval to seek. It is discussing what comes after that will be discussed. We can always do that after we leave, if necessary.
In an ideal world folk could also agree to conditions but in an ulterior motive world I suspect the system can not work with that. But in any case the conditions of leaving are more or less non-existent so there is no approval to seek. It is discussing what comes after that will be discussed. We can always do that after we leave, if necessary.
I guess the way it should work is that come election time if the MP's have done done as we asked should be fired.
On a matter of sovereignty, without doubt the people trump the MP's who may have their own agenda/snout in the trough (or hopeful of it).
The problem Brexit is showing us is that despite the will of the people some MPS are seeking to be 'involved' not so that they can stop us coming out of it but to manipulate it such that there is very little difference at the end of 'negotiations'. By this I mean things like an infatuation with a single market and being willing to pay vast sums for it and allow unfettered immigration (amongst other things).
On a matter of sovereignty, without doubt the people trump the MP's who may have their own agenda/snout in the trough (or hopeful of it).
The problem Brexit is showing us is that despite the will of the people some MPS are seeking to be 'involved' not so that they can stop us coming out of it but to manipulate it such that there is very little difference at the end of 'negotiations'. By this I mean things like an infatuation with a single market and being willing to pay vast sums for it and allow unfettered immigration (amongst other things).
"As regards Brexit, I understand that MP's ( of all Parties ) want a say in the conditions under which we leave the EU, not whether we leave or not."
That may be so. But there has been (and still is) opinion that suggests that the question should not have been put to the electorate but left to MPs (Sir David Attenborough is quoted today to be of that opinion. He believes the electorate are not wise enough). As I mentioned, holding the referendum was supported by 80% of MPs whilst more than 70% are Remainers. So it could only be the result that caused this point of view to rear its head.
However, forget the specific question. If a measure is supported by the majority of the electorate but none of the parties are prepared to see it through Parliament, whose will should prevail?
That may be so. But there has been (and still is) opinion that suggests that the question should not have been put to the electorate but left to MPs (Sir David Attenborough is quoted today to be of that opinion. He believes the electorate are not wise enough). As I mentioned, holding the referendum was supported by 80% of MPs whilst more than 70% are Remainers. So it could only be the result that caused this point of view to rear its head.
However, forget the specific question. If a measure is supported by the majority of the electorate but none of the parties are prepared to see it through Parliament, whose will should prevail?
To answer your last question NJ.....in that case Parliament should prevail.
As others have said, a country like Britain can't be governed by Referendums. That is why we have a Parliament. Of course, if Parliament continued to thwart the perceived will of the people, on important matters, than some kind of revolution might ensue.
But knowing Britain as I do, I find that situation to be most unlikely, so an Election would be called instead.
As others have said, a country like Britain can't be governed by Referendums. That is why we have a Parliament. Of course, if Parliament continued to thwart the perceived will of the people, on important matters, than some kind of revolution might ensue.
But knowing Britain as I do, I find that situation to be most unlikely, so an Election would be called instead.
Going back to the hypothetical jelly-babies --- Politicians may not be bound to represent the opinions of their constituents, but if they have any sense then they will do so. They are elected to represent all members of their constituency. Much though I now dislike jelly-babies (euccy are the new ones) if a majority of the people who voted me to power wanted them distributed freely in junior schools then I would take account of their views, aim for a compromise and (if that were not forthcoming) vote the way my people wanted. I would be there to represent them, after all.
It's an interesting question NJ, but trust me, you wouldn't actually want a situation where the 'general public' decided everything. The first thing they'd decide was that judges are a bunch of aloof ****s that needed stringing up for all the b******s they've inflicted on the 'general public' over the years, letting violent people off the hook to run riot in society etc. (and yes, I am aware of the irony there).
I'd probably be the one proposing that referendum myself, and I'd be pretty confident of victory.
On the Brexit issue, there's no question. Cameron organised a hasty referendum to try and save his ***, and it backfired horribly, but having done it they need to honour the promise and stick to the result.
I'd probably be the one proposing that referendum myself, and I'd be pretty confident of victory.
On the Brexit issue, there's no question. Cameron organised a hasty referendum to try and save his ***, and it backfired horribly, but having done it they need to honour the promise and stick to the result.
The only way to decide whether or not something was a matter for the "will of the people" would be to have a referendum ... on whether or not it was a matter for the "will of the people".
If the will of the people determined that it WAS a matter for the will of the people, then there would be a referendum on the substantive issue, in order to determine the will of the people.
Of course,this very debate undermines the concept of western democracy.
It presupposes that the opinion of our elected representatives does not adequately represent the will of the people.
And, on important matters, we have to let the mass of the people make up their minds.
Rather like ...
Ooh, say ... the more extremist Muslim societies!!
Holding a referendum is rather like saying ... forget the "democracy" that we have embraced for so long ... let's see who forms the biggest group, for they shall be powerful.
If the will of the people determined that it WAS a matter for the will of the people, then there would be a referendum on the substantive issue, in order to determine the will of the people.
Of course,this very debate undermines the concept of western democracy.
It presupposes that the opinion of our elected representatives does not adequately represent the will of the people.
And, on important matters, we have to let the mass of the people make up their minds.
Rather like ...
Ooh, say ... the more extremist Muslim societies!!
Holding a referendum is rather like saying ... forget the "democracy" that we have embraced for so long ... let's see who forms the biggest group, for they shall be powerful.
What's the point of Parliament if every decision can, theoretically at least, be made by consulting the people? Seems like this defeats the very concept of representative democracy.
In that sense I guess I am in agreement with TTT -- referenda ought to be restricted to "direction" questions, ie "where do we want our country to go?" In the case of the recent EU referendum, the answer was "out of the EU", but that leaves the details of how to implement this still within the purview of parliament. In the case of the tax on jelly babies, it's not a directional issue so doesn't deserve a referendum. If there were strong enough feeling on it then you would have to pressure MPs to support the measure in a more traditional way.
It seems that Brexit, whatever else it ends up meaning, has still exposed certain weaknesses in our democracy -- or, at least, potential contradictions. Surely it's as good a time as any to sort these out.
In that sense I guess I am in agreement with TTT -- referenda ought to be restricted to "direction" questions, ie "where do we want our country to go?" In the case of the recent EU referendum, the answer was "out of the EU", but that leaves the details of how to implement this still within the purview of parliament. In the case of the tax on jelly babies, it's not a directional issue so doesn't deserve a referendum. If there were strong enough feeling on it then you would have to pressure MPs to support the measure in a more traditional way.
It seems that Brexit, whatever else it ends up meaning, has still exposed certain weaknesses in our democracy -- or, at least, potential contradictions. Surely it's as good a time as any to sort these out.
