Lions All At Sixes And Severns C/D Jan...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Peoples Vote Vs Referendum
Can anyone explain what is the difference between a "People's Vote" and a "Second Referendum"?
Everyone knows what a referendum is, why invent a new name? Do they think it will make some people vote differently?
Everyone knows what a referendum is, why invent a new name? Do they think it will make some people vote differently?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kajman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ryzen - That's all very well, but it's the thin edge of an unweildy wedge.
Where do you draw the line?
If you are going to offer the electorate a reforendum on a basic fundamental principle affecting every single one of them, that's one thing, but if you are then going to offer then a similar reforendum on every single twist and turn in the legislation of parliament, then the cost will bankrupt the country in about six months.
The system is - we vote for a party which forms a government, and legislates, we let them get on with it.
If after four years we don't like their methods, we vote someone else in, if we are happy, we vote to keep them doing what they are doing.
That system works because the sort of micro-management that constant consultation and ratification of poliy would bring is simpy too unwieldy, not to say expensive and utterly impractical, so we can;t go down that road, which is why the 'People's Vote' won't happen about the only thing you can be certain of in these uncertain times.
Where do you draw the line?
If you are going to offer the electorate a reforendum on a basic fundamental principle affecting every single one of them, that's one thing, but if you are then going to offer then a similar reforendum on every single twist and turn in the legislation of parliament, then the cost will bankrupt the country in about six months.
The system is - we vote for a party which forms a government, and legislates, we let them get on with it.
If after four years we don't like their methods, we vote someone else in, if we are happy, we vote to keep them doing what they are doing.
That system works because the sort of micro-management that constant consultation and ratification of poliy would bring is simpy too unwieldy, not to say expensive and utterly impractical, so we can;t go down that road, which is why the 'People's Vote' won't happen about the only thing you can be certain of in these uncertain times.
I know you don't like the deal, Jim... Why should you? You get the "frictionless" trade and the social provision bits you want, but have forfeited your right to influence any future regulation which will be binding on the UK parliament and on British industry. You've swapped a single voice among twenty-seven(plus future extras) for no voice at all.
Meanwhile the "prominent Leavers" have agreed to retain all the things they don't want for an indeterminate period in the hope that the EU will agree a free trade deal with us somewhen. And that we're paying 39 billion for the privilege.
So, if you don't like this deal - and you're a Remainer - why does Gove like it? What's changed his mind?
Meanwhile the "prominent Leavers" have agreed to retain all the things they don't want for an indeterminate period in the hope that the EU will agree a free trade deal with us somewhen. And that we're paying 39 billion for the privilege.
So, if you don't like this deal - and you're a Remainer - why does Gove like it? What's changed his mind?
"OG: A referendum of any sort cannot, by definition, be anything other than democratic."
Not true. Continually asking the same question, without implementing the answer first time it is asked, in the hope of getting a different answer is definitely not democratic.
I'm not saying that's what might be done (though there's a definite possibility) but any subsequent referendum which includes the option to negate the result of the first betrays democracy (especially when it's excused with "It's too difficult. We'd better not do it"). It's what the EU does and that's one of the reasons why people voted to leave.
Not true. Continually asking the same question, without implementing the answer first time it is asked, in the hope of getting a different answer is definitely not democratic.
I'm not saying that's what might be done (though there's a definite possibility) but any subsequent referendum which includes the option to negate the result of the first betrays democracy (especially when it's excused with "It's too difficult. We'd better not do it"). It's what the EU does and that's one of the reasons why people voted to leave.
I can't possibly say. Perhaps it's pragmatism, perhaps it's cynicism, or perhaps some mixture of the two.
Although it's not taken very seriously on here, there is good reason to treat the economic threats that No Deal brings as real and dangerous. So avoiding that, whilst still managing to deliver some form of Brexit, however pale an imitation, is maybe seen as worth it to those lot.
Although it's not taken very seriously on here, there is good reason to treat the economic threats that No Deal brings as real and dangerous. So avoiding that, whilst still managing to deliver some form of Brexit, however pale an imitation, is maybe seen as worth it to those lot.
The EU never asked the same question twice. After previous referendum defeats, it made changes to the relevant Treaties and was only *then* returned to the people. In both second referendums you are probably thinking of, ie the ones in Ireland and Denmark, the second referendum even had a larger turnout, and larger margin, than the first one, which certainly undermines any point you might be trying to make.
Whatever happens in a future referendum, if it reaffirms the result then there will be no chance of a rerun for some time, and if it overturns the result... well, then the UK will have changed its mind as a whole, and probably on an increased turnout too.
Whatever happens in a future referendum, if it reaffirms the result then there will be no chance of a rerun for some time, and if it overturns the result... well, then the UK will have changed its mind as a whole, and probably on an increased turnout too.
//So avoiding that[No Deal], whilst still managing to deliver some form of Brexit, however pale an imitation, is maybe seen as worth it to those lot//
Under the May deal the only thing which leaves the EU is our representation in its institutions, Jim. And as long as no trade deal is agreed, which will depend entirely on the good will of the Commission, the UK will continue to pay tribute to its Liege Lord.
I understand how believers in globalism like yourself are willing to surrender local autonomy to oligarchs like Juncker, Schultz and Tusk, but I find it hard to believe how anybody of my age (or even Gove's) can square such willling servitude with basic self-respect.
Under the May deal the only thing which leaves the EU is our representation in its institutions, Jim. And as long as no trade deal is agreed, which will depend entirely on the good will of the Commission, the UK will continue to pay tribute to its Liege Lord.
I understand how believers in globalism like yourself are willing to surrender local autonomy to oligarchs like Juncker, Schultz and Tusk, but I find it hard to believe how anybody of my age (or even Gove's) can square such willling servitude with basic self-respect.
If memory serves, most of the more egregious Articles were at least time-limited, set to expire by the end of the 2020s. The Northern Ireland Backstop is the only one that could go on for longer, and even that is fairly conditional.
It's a rotten deal, still. On that we agree. I too am perplexed, to an extent, why Gove et al back it. I suspect the truth is too dark for some Brexit supporters to admit: namely, that Brexit must mean either political ruin under May's Deal, or economic ruin under No Deal. But to admit to this choice, if that is indeed the choice they see, is to destroy their own careers. Maybe the only difference is that they'd rather see political ruin, during which the UK could be seen as a de facto vassal of the EU, and hope that nobody really notices the effects. If No Deal really *is* as bad as is claimed, though, it's a reckless gamble.
I'm not sure if I've read this correctly, either. I can understand, although not sympathise with, Theresa May's approach, and Gove is the sort of politician to look after himself beyond any other concerns anyway, so who cares about why he thinks what he thinks?
No, it's people like Fox and Leadsom that surprise me. My impression of Leadsom in particular was that she was far from a typical politician, so what is she playing at? Does she truly think this deal is OK for us?
It's a rotten deal, still. On that we agree. I too am perplexed, to an extent, why Gove et al back it. I suspect the truth is too dark for some Brexit supporters to admit: namely, that Brexit must mean either political ruin under May's Deal, or economic ruin under No Deal. But to admit to this choice, if that is indeed the choice they see, is to destroy their own careers. Maybe the only difference is that they'd rather see political ruin, during which the UK could be seen as a de facto vassal of the EU, and hope that nobody really notices the effects. If No Deal really *is* as bad as is claimed, though, it's a reckless gamble.
I'm not sure if I've read this correctly, either. I can understand, although not sympathise with, Theresa May's approach, and Gove is the sort of politician to look after himself beyond any other concerns anyway, so who cares about why he thinks what he thinks?
No, it's people like Fox and Leadsom that surprise me. My impression of Leadsom in particular was that she was far from a typical politician, so what is she playing at? Does she truly think this deal is OK for us?
// then the cost [of referenda]will bankrupt the country in about six months. //
clearly not an economist - they arent that expensive and certainly less so than the £60bn we give the NHS which the brexit-liars said would go STRAIGHT to the NHS.
( oh no we didnt howl the Brexit ABers whilst the Blessed Nige said " oh no we shouldnt have [said that] " )
swizerland does a lot by them
we just havent had them ( referenda - keep concentrating everybody) for the last 1000 years
clearly not an economist - they arent that expensive and certainly less so than the £60bn we give the NHS which the brexit-liars said would go STRAIGHT to the NHS.
( oh no we didnt howl the Brexit ABers whilst the Blessed Nige said " oh no we shouldnt have [said that] " )
swizerland does a lot by them
we just havent had them ( referenda - keep concentrating everybody) for the last 1000 years
Latest Posts
Body & Soul8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Home & Garden12 mins ago
Other Sports16 mins ago