Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on May 21, 2019, 10:27:46 AM
-
If you want to vote in the European election on Thursday, do so. If you don't, don't. Please refrain from self-righteous, hectoring posts telling everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so. It's none of your business! (Thought I'd get that in in advance of the self-righteous brigade!)
-
If you want to vote in the European election on Thursday, do so. If you don't, don't. Please refrain from self-righteous, hectoring posts telling everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so. It's none of your business! (Thought I'd get that in in advance of the self-righteous brigade!)
I do think people should vote and I'd favour making voting compulsory as occurs in other countries as to strengthens democracy by getting the views of the widest range of people rather than (as is often the case) a relatively small number of voters. So it will be interesting to see whether turnout is higher on Thursday but historically turnout in EU elections has been about 35% - so frankly any attempt to portray the results as the 'view of the people of Britain' is non-sense.
But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.
-
I do think people should vote and I'd favour making voting compulsory as occurs in other countries as to strengthens democracy by getting the views of the widest range of people rather than (as is often the case) a relatively small number of voters. So it will be interesting to see whether turnout is higher on Thursday but historically turnout in EU elections has been about 35% - so frankly any attempt to portray the results as the 'view of the people of Britain' is non-sense.
But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.
Yep.
(And I've already voted by post.)
-
Definitely not compulsory voting. People have a right to care not a fig for politics, and it is compulsory voting that would give a distorted view of where the nation's sympathies lie, not optional voting, as at present, since under the current system we know what proportion of the populace doesn't care enough about politics to be bothered voting. I am aware that under compulsory voting systems, voters are usually provided with a "
fuck the lot of them none of the above" option, but the point still holds. It is up to politicians to make us care enough about politics to vote.
-
I am not in favour of making voting compulsory, I think people should have the choice to vote or not to vote.
-
I am not in favour of making voting compulsory, I think people should have the choice to vote or not to vote.
I'm glad - and mildly surprised - that we agree about that!
-
Here is a little game for you all:
The is little doubt that Farage's Brexit party will gain the largest number of votes and seats on Thursday (results come out on Sunday). Farage will no doubt claim he has won and that it is a clear vindication for his brand of brexit.
But will the Brexit party get more or less votes than:
1. The 17,410,742 who voted for leave in the 2016 referendum
2. The 16,141,241 who voted to remain in the 2016 referendum
3. The 13,636,684 who voted Conservative in the 2017 General Election
4. The 12,878,460 who voted Labour in the 2017 General Election
5. The 6,083,303 who have signed the petition to revoke article 50 and remain in the EU
6. The 4,376,635 who voted UKIP in the 2014 European Parliament election
-
My guess is it will be slightly higher than 5. But 5 is anomalous in the list as it is non election/referendum figure. It doesn't really matter though if they are the significantly largest party, that's the news
-
And just to note D'Hondt, modified or not, is an abomination.
-
I suspect that you are right, Prof.
The thought has occurred to me that - should (eventually) the UK not leave the EU, then the largest British contingent in the European Parliament, until the next election, will be Farage's collection of turdheads. The United Kingdom will have no effective representation.
Another medal that Theresa May can wear with pride.
-
As NS said, winning the election will give Farage a boost. He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP. But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.
-
As NS said, winning the election will give Farage a boost. He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP. But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.
What is a Brexit party for at the next GE if we have left? It's basically a company set up to indulge Farage. Which makes it fucking dangerous.
-
The thought has occurred to me that - should (eventually) the UK not leave the EU, then the largest British contingent in the European Parliament, until the next election, will be Farage's collection of turdheads. The United Kingdom will have no effective representation.
But that's exactly what happened after the 2014 election, albeit the MEPs were from UKIP rather than Brexit - although the latter is really the evolution of the former given that UKIP in 2014 and Brexit in 2019 are in effect the same party, lead by Farage.
-
And just to note D'Hondt, modified or not, is an abomination.
Absolutely. Who imposed this madness on us? (Answer: Parliament, not the EU - countries can choose their own method of electing MEPs, so it must have been Westminster.) NI uses single transferable vote, and so should the rest of the UK.
-
As NS said, winning the election will give Farage a boost. He is saying that this will carry over to a GE, this seems doubtful, because of FPTP. But it's possible, small steps towards fascism.
The 2014 EU election which UKIP, under Farage, won gave them such a boost that less than a year later in the 2015 General Election they won exactly 1 seat.
They were nobbled not only by FPTP, but also turnout - so in 2014 they got 4.3 million votes, but on a 36% turnout - clearly enough to win the EU election. A year later, they'd retained most of those voters - they got 3.8 million votes, but on a 66% turnout.
-
I won't be voting. I simply can't be arsed.
-
But that isn't my major point. What irritates me are people who choose not to vote and then complain about the people elected - that is rank hypocrisy. If you can't be bothered to vote you forfeit your right to complain about the result frankly.
On the contrary. Politicians are meant to serve all the people, not only those who voted for them, but for those who voted for others and for those who never voted at all.
-
I won't be voting. I simply can't be arsed.
In the UK or Finland?
-
In the UK or Finland?
In Finland, as I live there. Never been moved to vote in European elections. I do vote in local and national elections.
-
On the contrary. Politicians are meant to serve all the people, not only those who voted for them, but for those who voted for others and for those who never voted at all.
Indeed - politicians should serve everyone, including those unable to vote.
But that wasn't my point - my point was that if you are eligible to vote (which is the process by which we choose those politicians) and you choose not to then you are in no position to complain about the person chosen in that manner. You had your opportunity to influence that choice and chose not to take it.
-
We'll have to agree to differ mate. In my opinion one who chooses not to vote does not forfeit the right tocomplain about the politicians others voted in, after all they make decision that affect all of us.
-
Whilst I don't think voting should be compulsory by law, I think a person who chooses not to vote is in no position to moan about those who subsequently come into power.
-
I'm with ad_o here, particularly as I'm finding it harder to vote for any of the shower. If someone who's suffered because of the Windrush scandal hasn't voted, they still not only have a right to complain but are right to do so.
-
I'm with ad_o here, particularly as I'm finding it harder to vote for any of the shower. If someone who's suffered because of the Windrush scandal hasn't voted, they still not only have a right to complain but are right to do so.
Yes a problem I'm having too. When I look on some website for voting tactically it advise me, being a supporter of Remain to vote for the Libdems.
Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies. ::)
Labour, usually the home of my vote, is so hopelessly lost thanks to Corbyn on the question of Europe that I find myself without a decent resting place for my cross.
-
Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?
-
Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?
Yep - 'none of the above' is a considered choice, and if that option isn't on the ballot paper then there is an argument for not voting at all.
-
Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies. ::)
I think that this kind of thinking ignores reality and is self-defeating.
The coalition appear to have been condemned by traditional LibDem supporters as an act of treason. It provided the LibDems with opportunities to do two main things:
1 Experience the reality of being the executive branch branch of government and - presumably - acquiring the skills, knowledge and understanding of its operation.
2 Exercise some moderation on the behaviour of the Conservative majority.
I would have thought that a party which supports proportional representation over FPTP would have realised that PR increases the likelihood of coalition ... but then all political parties have their boneheads ...
-
Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?
Then stand yourself - unless you couldn't in good conscience support yourself.
-
Then stand yourself - unless you couldn't in good conscience support yourself.
Silly. Few are cut out for politics.
-
Yes a problem I'm having too. When I look on some website for voting tactically it advise me, being a supporter of Remain to vote for the Libdems.
Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies. ::)
Labour, usually the home of my vote, is so hopelessly lost thanks to Corbyn on the question of Europe that I find myself without a decent resting place for my cross.
brexit makes it much easier for me to vote. Until we either leave the EU or cancel article 50, I can only vote for a mainstream party that wants us to stay in the EU and that means Lib Dems. The last general election was easy. The council elections were easy. The EU elections will be easy.
-
Silly. Few are cut out for politics.
What on earth do you mean. People who stand for election are from all backgrounds and walks of life.
And if you don't want to (or can't be bothered) yourself then get a bit organised and find someone you think would be good and persuade them to stand.
Politics isn't a spectator sport.
-
Yep - 'none of the above' is a considered choice, and if that option isn't on the ballot paper then there is an argument for not voting at all.
True - which is why my preference would be for compulsory voting and a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.
But frankly I don't believe most people who don't vote are doing so on a principled and considered 'none of the above' basis, but frankly because they cannot be arsed. And that being the case I don't see how those people have a leg to stand on if they don't like the person elected or think they are useful.
There are precious few elections where all options are equally bad - so if you don't actively like a particular candidate then vote for the least bad - vote to keep the person you want least out.
But don't fail to vote and then whinge from the sidelines.
-
True - which is why my preference would be for compulsory voting and a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.
But frankly I don't believe most people who don't vote are doing so on a principled and considered 'none of the above' basis, but frankly because they cannot be arsed. And that being the case I don't see how those people have a leg to stand on if they don't like the person elected or think they are useful.
There are precious few elections where all options are equally bad - so if you don't actively like a particular candidate then vote for the least bad - vote to keep the person you want least out.
But don't fail to vote and then whinge from the sidelines.
Read the OP again.
-
What on earth do you mean. People who stand for election are from all backgrounds and walks of life.
And if you don't want to (or can't be bothered) yourself then get a bit organised and find someone you think would be good and persuade them to stand.
Politics isn't a spectator sport.
Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things. Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people. If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.
-
Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things. Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people. If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.
Hear hear!
-
A none of the above option is a futile exercise.
-
Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things.
FFS - you don't need to be privileged to stand for election. I know loads of people from all kinds of backgrounds who have stood, and plenty who have served, for example as councillors.
Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people.
So why are there plenty of people - e.g. local councillors who hold down a job, deal with raising a family and also commit in their spare time to the work required as a councillor.
If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.
Missing the point again - what I said was if you choose not to vote you have no right to complain at the outcome of the election.
-
Read the OP again.
Just have done.
The OP is about people telling 'everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so'.
I have done no such thing. My point is that is you choose not to vote you forfeit the right to complain about who gets elected.
-
Here is a little game for you all:
The is little doubt that Farage's Brexit party will gain the largest number of votes and seats on Thursday (results come out on Sunday). Farage will no doubt claim he has won and that it is a clear vindication for his brand of brexit.
But will the Brexit party get more or less votes than:
1. The 17,410,742 who voted for leave in the 2016 referendum
2. The 16,141,241 who voted to remain in the 2016 referendum
3. The 13,636,684 who voted Conservative in the 2017 General Election
4. The 12,878,460 who voted Labour in the 2017 General Election
5. The 6,083,303 who have signed the petition to revoke article 50 and remain in the EU
6. The 4,376,635 who voted UKIP in the 2014 European Parliament election
Given that only NS has provided as response - I guess I shoot stick my neck out.
My prediction is that Brexit will comfortable 'win' the EU election - by that I mean it will gain more votes and seats than any of the other parties.
In terms of total number of votes - I think Brexit will not quite beat the petition numbers, probably ending on or just under 6 million votes. That is based on them polling toward the higher end of the opinion poll predictions (so about 35%), but with turnout not markedly different to the 2014 35% level.
I'm not convinced that turnout will be markedly different to the recent run of 30-36% in EU elections. In fact if anything I suspect it may be lower for a range of reasons - not least the lack of any other elections today. My own experience this morning, voting at peak morning rush time of 8am was that the polling station was eerily quiet - I was the only voter there.
Anyhow on Sunday we will see and no doubt others will jump on me as my predictions are proved to be massively wrong!!!
Come on people have a pop at a prediction yourself on:
1. Total number of votes for the Brexit Party and
2. Turnout %
-
It will be interesting to see what the regional variations are - the headline about Farage's party 'winning' overall may turn out to be true but the results may also show that enthusiasm for Brexit-supporting parties isn't uniform across the UK.
-
The turnout is incredibly hard to call. Last week I was thinking it had to be higher because of the overall interest but the last few days with the idea that today we could have the PM resign but the news agencies were unsure if they could report it on the day has boggled the tiny amount of unboggledness that I had left. So my guess is that the votes for the Brexit party 6.16 m, and turnout of 36.8%
-
We've just been to vote, and there were a lot of voters there - there was even a queue (of 2) - usually we never see anyone else at the voting station.
So, not convinced that turnout will be the normal for EU elections. It seems that many Leavers will make a point of voting in this (useless if we leave) election, despite opposition to a peoples-vote/2nd ref.
Not sure that those that still prefer Remain will make the effort - although their votes could actually achieve a change in direction.
-
I think turnout will be high, because it is widely seen as a surrogate second referendum.
-
I don't think the turnout will be that high, I have spoken to a few people who can't be bothered to vote. :( I passed the local primary school polling station on my early morning walk, there appeared to be very few people voting before going to work. When a general election is being held the place is teaming at that time of the morning.
-
I don't think the turnout will be that high, I have spoken to a few people who can't be bothered to vote.
That is generalising from a small number of particular instances - and not randomly-chosen at that.I passed the local primary school polling station on my early morning walk, there appeared to be very few people voting before going to work. When a general election is being held the place is teaming at that time of the morning.
People have until 10:00 tonight, and more and more people use postal votes.
-
That is generalising from a small number of particular instances - and not randomly-chosen at that.People have until 10:00 tonight, and more and more people use postal votes.
The turnout will be reported after our polls close, then we shall see if has been low or high.
-
I think turnout will be high, because it is widely seen as a surrogate second referendum.
Money where your mouth is:
How high?
For context the last 3 EU elections (all held on the same day as local elections) had turnouts of: 35.6%, 34.7%, 38.5%, the most recent held in isolation, in other words no other election on the same day, had a turnout of 24% back in 1999.
-
The turnout will be reported after our polls close, then we shall see if has been low or high.
Counting doesn't take place until Sunday evening, so I don't suppose we will know anything official on turnout until then.
-
FFS - you don't need to be privileged to stand for election.
No. You need £1,000, if you want to stand for parliament.
-
No. You need £1,000, if you want to stand for parliament.
Actually it is £500 - For parliament yes - although this is of course just a deposit and is refunded if you get 5% of the votes cast and will be covered if you are linked to a party by that party mechanism. Even if not then surely you'd be able to fund-raise to cover this - it would be just £50 from each of your nominees.
But not for other levels of local government - to stand for your local council costs not a penny (not even an upfront deposit) - all you need is 10 people to sign your nomination paper. That's it.
-
Counting doesn't take place until Sunday evening, so I don't suppose we will know anything official on turnout until then.
We might, or might not.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/23/eu-citizens-denied-vote-european-election-polling-booths-admin-errors
A nationwide picture is emerging of EU citizens in the UK being denied their democratic right to vote in the European parliament elections because of administrative errors by local councils.
Reports are coming in from across the country of EU nationals turning up at polling booths and finding their names crossed out and being told by officials they are not eligible to vote.
Sounds like a shambles - to be added to the UK govt. mistakes and delays responsible for some UK citizens abroad being unable to vote.
-
We might, or might not.
Well, we won't. Exit polls will give an indication, but they're not official.
-
Well, we won't. Exit polls will give an indication, but they're not official.
Exit polls are not allowed to be released in one country prior to voting closing across all 28 EU countries.
-
Exit polls are not allowed to be released in one country prior to voting closing across all 28 EU countries.
Well, in that case, we certainly won't.
-
Exit polls are not allowed to be released in one country prior to voting closing across all 28 EU countries.
just seen an exit poll from the Netherlands
Not sure what the definition is of what cannot be done
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1131637132412542976
-
just seen an exit poll from the Netherlands
Not sure what the definition is of what cannot be done
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1131637132412542976
Not sure whether the law in the Netherlands is different, or whether someone is simply ignoring the law (both are suggested in the comments), but certainly in the UK it is illegal to publish any exit poll before 10pm on Sunday.
-
Counting doesn't take place until Sunday evening, so I don't suppose we will know anything official on turnout until then.
Some local authorities have verified their votes and therefore have published their individual turnouts.
So, for example, turnout in my area - St Albans - is 47%. Not sure how this compares with the 2014 but is a little up on the local elections a few weeks ago (they were about 40% overall).
However reading Politicalbetting.com there is a trend emerging - specifically that turnout positively correlates with remain % vote in the 2016 referendum - in other words the more remain areas have greater turnout than leave areas.
What this really means for the overall result remains, of course, unclear yet.
-
And one that was apparently raised prior to the day and the govt ignored.
https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1131821146180079616
-
With a decent number of authorities reporting turnout it looks as if turnout is 2-3% up on 2014 (which was 35.6%) - so we are looking at turnout of high 30s.
The trend vs remain/leave in interesting. Remain areas having higher turnout - but that is perhaps not surprising as they tend to be more middle class areas which typically have higher turnouts. More interesting is that there is a correlation between change in turnout compared to 2014 and remain vs leave - with remain areas showing the greatest increase in turnout with leave areas flat or even declining vs 2014.
Neither London nor Scotland is reporting turnout yet - I think that happens later today. Given that both were strong remain areas and with the current trends we might see more marked turnout increases in both of those places, and perhaps that might push overall turnout over 40%.
-
I chose not to vote. I wrote to MP and told him so. He replied he quite understood! I'd have had to have a taxi there, wait and bring me home too.
?So there! Yah, boo to Brexiteers and the whole sorry mess.
-
As reported in the Evening Leader.
TURNOUTS for the European Parliament elections have been announced ahead of formal counting of our votes on Sunday and they are about four per cent up on figures for the last European Parliament elections in 2014:
Turnouts figures announced on Friday are:
Flintshire 35.7 per cent (2014 turnout 31 per cent)
Wrexham 34 per cent (2014 29.5 per cent)
Cheshire West and Chester 34.9 per cent (2014 31.27 per cent).
The votes for 73 UK Members of the European Parliament four members for the all-Wales region and eight members for the North West region will be counted according to the DHondt system of proportional representation.
-
Hearing that overall turnout is 38% - so a touch up on the 35.6% last time, but no seismic shift.
Also the correlation whereby increase in turnout is greatest in 2016 remain areas and least (or even turnout decline) in 2016 leave areas. What this all means in terms of results remains unclear though.
-
Finding it anoying that the media are treating the vote as FPTP when it is proportional.
Farage has not "won" the election as it is a proportional vote for EP. If he wants to be part of the brexit negotiations he can do so by working through the EP committee set up for that.
-
Finding it anoying that the media are treating the vote as FPTP when it is proportional.
Farage has not "won" the election as it is a proportional vote for EP. If he wants to be part of the brexit negotiations he can do so by working through the EP committee set up for that.
Indeed - and the remain parties (Lib Dem/Green/CHUK/SNP/Plaid) clearly beat the hard brexit parties (Brexit/UKIP etc) and it was remain parties that made the big gains, not Brexit/UKIP.
Final turnout seems to be 36.7% so only a touch up from 2014. Total Brexit party vote was 5.2M or a touch over 11% of the electorate. Comfortably beaten by the over 6M who signed the revoke petition - and even if you add the UKIP vote too it doesn't reach 6M.
The story - if there is one - is that people are hacked off with both Tory and Labour in their approach to brexit - but that more people seem to want an alternative which involves remaining in the UK than want to 'get on with brexit'.
Labour to pivot to unequivocally supporting second referendum in days?
-
Indeed - and the remain parties (Lib Dem/Green/CHUK/SNP/Plaid) clearly beat the hard brexit parties (Brexit/UKIP etc) and it was remain parties that made the big gains, not Brexit/UKIP.
Final turnout seems to be 36.7% so only a touch up from 2014. Total Brexit party vote was 5.2M or a touch over 11% of the electorate. Comfortably beaten by the over 6M who signed the revoke petition - and even if you add the UKIP vote too it doesn't reach 6M.
The story - if there is one - is that people are hacked off with both Tory and Labour in their approach to brexit - but that more people seem to want an alternative which involves remaining in the UK than want to 'get on with brexit'.
Labour to pivot to unequivocally supporting second referendum in days?
Not sure I would read as much into it as that. Compared to the referendum or GE the turnout was low. The only conclusion I can draw is that the UK is sill basically split down he middle on the issue. As to Labour, I hope you are right and that they do endorse a second referendum, but I fear you underestimate Corby n's ability to procrastinate.
-
I think Labour should also be looking for a new leader to replace Corbyn, as he has done a very poor job, imo.
-
Not sure I would read as much into it as that.
Hence:
'The story - if there is one ...'[/quote]
Compared to the referendum or GE the turnout was low. The only conclsion I can draw is that the UK is sill basially split down he middle on the issue.
True - but you need to understand momentum or direction of travel of opinion and that is pretty clearly in the direction of second referendum/remain. That's what this election and the local elections showed with the biggest overall gains being for unequivocally remain parties. That's also what polling is showing too.
As to Labour, I hope you are right and that thy do endorse a econd referendum, but I fear you underestimate Corby n's ability to procrastinate.
I don't underestimate Corbyn's ability to procrastinate (which is actually an opposition to the EU), but the position is becoming untenable - pretty well all his membership and voters want Labour to be clearly pro-second referendum - he is swimming against an increasingly strong tide.
-
I think Labour should also be looking for a new leader to replace Corbyn, as he has done a very poor job, imo.
I agree - although given the current make up of the electorate they's still go for a hard left candidate, albeit one that is clearly pro-remain.
-
What a mess the Tories have opened the door to: an idea with no substance or preparation which they were too incompetent to deliver and where the main opposition in Westminster is just as incompetent in not opposing as it became increasingly obvious Brexit was a disaster in any form. The result being introduced political division that was probably avoidable to some extent, and where a large chuck of the electorate in England and Wales seem to have become infected with the irrationality of Brexit.
What hasn't been commented on just as much today is that the outcome here in Scotland is so very different in that the balance of opinion translated into these EU seats is anti-Brexit,
-
Total Brexit party vote was 5.2M or a touch over 11% of the electorate. Comfortably beaten by the over 6M who signed the revoke petition - and even if you add the UKIP vote too it doesn't reach 6M.
Excellent. That's all I need to counter the vote for Brexit bullshit that's going to come my way in the next few days.
-
I think Labour should also be looking for a new leader to replace Corbyn, as he has done a very poor job, imo.
I agree. In fact, it occurred to me that, if Labour had a pro-Remain leader, this whole fiasco would be a thing of the past.
-
I agree. In fact, it occurred to me that, if Labour had a pro-Remain leader, this whole fiasco would be a thing of the past.
Quite possibly.
-
I agree. In fact, it occurred to me that, if Labour had a pro-Remain leader, this whole fiasco would be a thing of the past.
Indeed - had the Labour leadership (i.e. Corbyn) campaigned passionately for remain, that tiny majority for leave in 2016 is unlikely to have happened.
-
I was listening to the Today programme a little while ago. There was an interview with one of the dozen or so Conservative leadership hopefuls.
What disturbed me was the attitude of the interviewee (I didn't catch his name) was that leaving the EU is a certainty and to fail to do so would be a "betrayal of the will of the people" and must precede any election.
-
I was listening to the Today programme a little while ago. There was an interview with one of the dozen or so Conservative leadership hopefuls.
What disturbed me was the attitude of the interviewee (I didn't catch his name) was that leaving the EU is a certainty and to fail to do so would be a "betrayal of the will of the people" and must precede any election.
They talk about, 'betrayal of the will of the people', when many people hadn't a clue for what they were voting. :o
-
Indeed - had the Labour leadership (i.e. Corbyn) campaigned passionately for remain, that tiny majority for leave in 2016 is unlikely to have happened.
Well I wasn't thinking that far back, but it is a fair comment.
-
I was listening to the Today programme a little while ago. There was an interview with one of the dozen or so Conservative leadership hopefuls.
What disturbed me was the attitude of the interviewee (I didn't catch his name) was that leaving the EU is a certainty and to fail to do so would be a "betrayal of the will of the people" and must precede any election.
Could have been Jeremy Hunt? - also arguing against a no-deal exit. Did you also listen to Sumption's Reith Lecture straight after? - it touched on those attitudes in relation to referenda.
I find it quite depressing. We can re-imagine the past, but from this point looking forwards it doesn't look good whatever path is taken. A 2nd referendum with a super-majority mandated? I suspect one with a 52-48 the other way would not fix anything.
-
Yes, I did hear the Reith Lecture and subsequent discussion. I was pleased to hear a public denunciation of the referendum as a means of determining government policy. Margaret Thatcher did not like referenda - she considered them to be a tool of dictatorship.
-
Yes, I did hear the Reith Lecture and subsequent discussion. I was pleased to hear a public denunciation of the referendum as a means of determining government policy. Margaret Thatcher did not like referenda - she considered them to be a tool of dictatorship.
I don't have a fundamental issue with referendums, but they should only be used in very specific circumstances, specifically:
1. Where the Government of the day wishes to make a change which is of constitutional significance
2. That the choices offered are clear and deliverable by the Government offering that referendum
If the second criterion isn't met I can see the case for a decision in 2 stages - an advisory stage to provide a mandate to negotiate a 'clear and deliverable' proposal. Then a second confirmatory vote to determine whether there is a mandate for that actual proposal. This could apply to both the Scottish IndyRef and Brexit.
However a referendum should never be called if a government doesn't want to change something (as was the case for Brexit) as the government of the day (2015 general election) did not want to leave the EU.
-
Yes, I did hear the Reith Lecture and subsequent discussion. I was pleased to hear a public denunciation of the referendum as a means of determining government policy. Margaret Thatcher did not like referenda - she considered them to be a tool of dictatorship.
That was about the only thing she ever got right.