Did You Know That Inhalers For Asthma...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Referendums
Wouldn't it be a good idea to hold referendums instead of having politicians passing laws? We could solve the crime problem at a stroke, or several if the majority of our 60 million people had the say so.
I bet the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers would be gone tomorrow.
I bet the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers would be gone tomorrow.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oakleaf51. 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.
kromo Sorry, but I disagree with a referendum on decisions such as the EEC / EU.
The trouble is that (again) people do not understand the full complexities of the argument. If a vote was held today about joining the Euro, the majority of the populace would not understand the benefits or the down sides. The majority of people will either only think about changing currency when going on holiday or similar. How many people would consider how it would effect industry and the country's future?
Unfortunately, it would also make Murdoch even more powerful. After all in any referendum, most people's opinions would be swayed by the media. Remember the Sun's campaign against Kinnock (last one out please turn off the lights). Although amusing it has a major influence.
The tabloid media are (imho) too powerful now and I would dread to think of the state of this country if they were to gain even more influence.
Romeo Sorry, but I don't feel that is possible either. Again, I don't feel that a great deal of the population have the intellect to fully understand the law.
Have a look at this bill which may go through in the next year or two: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 506/cmbills/002/06002.i-v.html
If you ever borrow money or use a credit card then this directly effects you. Do you have the time to go thorough this? Do you have an opinion on this?
In case of a referendum, how would you vote on this bill?
The trouble is that (again) people do not understand the full complexities of the argument. If a vote was held today about joining the Euro, the majority of the populace would not understand the benefits or the down sides. The majority of people will either only think about changing currency when going on holiday or similar. How many people would consider how it would effect industry and the country's future?
Unfortunately, it would also make Murdoch even more powerful. After all in any referendum, most people's opinions would be swayed by the media. Remember the Sun's campaign against Kinnock (last one out please turn off the lights). Although amusing it has a major influence.
The tabloid media are (imho) too powerful now and I would dread to think of the state of this country if they were to gain even more influence.
Romeo Sorry, but I don't feel that is possible either. Again, I don't feel that a great deal of the population have the intellect to fully understand the law.
Have a look at this bill which may go through in the next year or two: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 506/cmbills/002/06002.i-v.html
If you ever borrow money or use a credit card then this directly effects you. Do you have the time to go thorough this? Do you have an opinion on this?
In case of a referendum, how would you vote on this bill?
Sorry for the double-post, I didn't see Oneeyedvic's post before....
That's a fair point about ignorance regarding the main issues, but it just seems to accord with the principle of democratic government.
Democracy means gov't by the people, for better or for worse, and although that's impossible to implement in the long run, it just seems reasonable that governing parties should go to those they represent when they hit on an extremely (and often bitterly) divisive issue such as EEC membership.
Wilson's party, like Macmillan's, was deeply divided over the issue - at least Wilson could then call a stance on the issue that was democratically legitimate, and at the very least make his fragile position tenable.
That's a fair point about ignorance regarding the main issues, but it just seems to accord with the principle of democratic government.
Democracy means gov't by the people, for better or for worse, and although that's impossible to implement in the long run, it just seems reasonable that governing parties should go to those they represent when they hit on an extremely (and often bitterly) divisive issue such as EEC membership.
Wilson's party, like Macmillan's, was deeply divided over the issue - at least Wilson could then call a stance on the issue that was democratically legitimate, and at the very least make his fragile position tenable.
As part of the answer to oneeyedvic, nobody has considered, as far as I know, whether there would be a much better way to punish financial criminals. Why not confiscate their assets to a value of the amount they have obtained illegally, plus 25%. If they haven't that amount available when convicted their income is taken over by the prosecuting authority who deducts a specified amount each month until the full amount is repaid. As a further point, people who commit certain crimes, to be agreed upon, can not appeal on a human rights basis.
1.Do you want NI to remain part of the UK?
Or
2. Do you want NI to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside of the UK?
The result was
Option 1. 591,820 98.9% (57.5% of the electorate)
Option 2 6,463 1.1% (0.6% of the electorate)
Sinn F�in/IRA and SDLP encouraged the boycott on the basis that the island of Ireland should have voted but by that thinking, the rest of the UK should have voted too.
If every law were decided by a referendum, democracy would grind to a halt due to the number of laws and amendments passed every year.
If you think of the complexity of some laws, how would the public receive the information on which to make a
decision and what would be the financial implications?
Or
2. Do you want NI to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside of the UK?
The result was
Option 1. 591,820 98.9% (57.5% of the electorate)
Option 2 6,463 1.1% (0.6% of the electorate)
Sinn F�in/IRA and SDLP encouraged the boycott on the basis that the island of Ireland should have voted but by that thinking, the rest of the UK should have voted too.
If every law were decided by a referendum, democracy would grind to a halt due to the number of laws and amendments passed every year.
If you think of the complexity of some laws, how would the public receive the information on which to make a
decision and what would be the financial implications?
i do not agree with referendums instead of government for a lot of reasons, mainly because i get to have my say, unfortunately all the people who disagree with me and or are thick also get to have their say. I thank god i dont have to make decisions about whether to go to war and stuff, i elect people to make these complex and difficult decisions for me
Some topics are so important that referenda should be offered. MP's often squeal at this idea, usually because they see their grip on the gravy train being weakened and they will often patronisingly opine that THEY were elected to do the thinking for us (they were not) and also that the populist idea would always win. Yet that's the point of democracy - whatever is most popular should prevail. Be it painful, detrimental or just plain crazy - if the majority of Britons want something, they should get it. This is what politicians secretly know and that's why they are so fearful of it. We SHOULD have gone to polls on:
How far we become part of the EU
Whether we invade Iraq
Capital punishment
Funding of NHS
Our immigration and deportion policy
How far we become part of the EU
Whether we invade Iraq
Capital punishment
Funding of NHS
Our immigration and deportion policy
NikkiB
Have you got some sort of specialist expertise that provides you with a comprehensive knowledge about these subjects so that you can make a balanced, informed and non subjective vote on these matters. Are you in a position to understand and be familiar with all the pros and cons and then able to balance up the different factors to come to a considered opionion. Well done if you can but I suspect you are very much in a minority, with most of the electorate being like me not able to do so other than pretty much at a subjective level
EU or not. Difficult because there are strongly held views about this subject but I do not really understand the economic implications
Invade Iraq? I am probably close to agreeing with you as I think we would have said no.
State Murder - no unethical, but if the answer is yes, yes to what offences.
Funding of NHS - what should we through a taxation system or should health only be the provenance of the wealth - how does such a vast issue as funding get covered in a yes, or no?
Immigration - as with NHS what is going to be the one question that covers such a complex issue?
I would be very interested to see how you envisage covering such wide ranging topics with a simple yes or no
Have you got some sort of specialist expertise that provides you with a comprehensive knowledge about these subjects so that you can make a balanced, informed and non subjective vote on these matters. Are you in a position to understand and be familiar with all the pros and cons and then able to balance up the different factors to come to a considered opionion. Well done if you can but I suspect you are very much in a minority, with most of the electorate being like me not able to do so other than pretty much at a subjective level
EU or not. Difficult because there are strongly held views about this subject but I do not really understand the economic implications
Invade Iraq? I am probably close to agreeing with you as I think we would have said no.
State Murder - no unethical, but if the answer is yes, yes to what offences.
Funding of NHS - what should we through a taxation system or should health only be the provenance of the wealth - how does such a vast issue as funding get covered in a yes, or no?
Immigration - as with NHS what is going to be the one question that covers such a complex issue?
I would be very interested to see how you envisage covering such wide ranging topics with a simple yes or no
Yes, informed choice was a matter I was going to add once I had the free time.
Naturally none of the questions are straightforward. The electorate needs to know the expected pros and cons with regards to social, legal and financial implications. My town recently had a kind of referendum regarding the future of our grand old hospital. Unfortunately the question wasn't quite right - It was basically "Shall we close the hospital in 2008 or 2009" when virtually everyone in the area doesn't want it closed at all.
What I believe should be a kind of survey with a number of related issues being addressed. Very few ideals can be resolved by straight ayes or noes.
Naturally none of the questions are straightforward. The electorate needs to know the expected pros and cons with regards to social, legal and financial implications. My town recently had a kind of referendum regarding the future of our grand old hospital. Unfortunately the question wasn't quite right - It was basically "Shall we close the hospital in 2008 or 2009" when virtually everyone in the area doesn't want it closed at all.
What I believe should be a kind of survey with a number of related issues being addressed. Very few ideals can be resolved by straight ayes or noes.
Latest Posts
Technology7 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News18 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News35 mins ago
