|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 17:07:36 GMT
For me the concept of holding referendum is merely a sign of weak governance and merely leads to divisiveness and confusion...QED BREXIT... .most people cannot fathom the concept of the EU, its philosophy or its aims or its future direction of travel; let alone have a basis upon which to form a coherent view especially with all the uninformed noise and crap from social media that surrounds such political indescision nowadays. Brexit was basically predicated upon the weakness of Cameron against that woeful team of useful idiots, Farage and Johnson. All engaging in some banal exchange of tweets and insults in order to reduce the complexities of the question into some crass popularist narratives that would capture the imagination of brain dead British voters. Well that is wrong - the future direction of travel is exactly the same as its been since 1952. If you want to live in a European superstate then fine but to refuse to allow the people a say on that and tell them they must defer to the views of politicians is hardly democratic. But then democracy and the EU are strange bedfellows. we do that every 4 or so years....or you want a referendum on everything? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 9, 2023 17:08:52 GMT
Well that is wrong - the future direction of travel is exactly the same as its been since 1952. If you want to live in a European superstate then fine but to refuse to allow the people a say on that and tell them they must defer to the views of politicians is hardly democratic. But then democracy and the EU are strange bedfellows. we do that every 4 or so years....or you want a referendum on everything? Not every issue involves giving away sovereignty.. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 17:13:03 GMT
For me the concept of holding referendum is merely a sign of weak governance and merely leads to divisiveness and confusion...QED BREXIT... .most people cannot fathom the concept of the EU, its philosophy or its aims or its future direction of travel; let alone have a basis upon which to form a coherent view especially with all the uninformed noise and crap from social media that surrounds such political indescision nowadays. Brexit was basically predicated upon the weakness of Cameron against that woeful team of useful idiots, Farage and Johnson. All engaging in some banal exchange of tweets and insults in order to reduce the complexities of the question into some crass popularist narratives that would capture the imagination of brain dead British voters.
If you want to live in a European superstate then fine but to refuse to allow the people a say on that and tell them they must defer to the views of politicians is hardly democratic. But then democracy and the EU are strange bedfellows. I wouldn't disagree with you to the extent of the concepts of Kant being integrated into an overarching view of the cosmopolitanisation of a European vision and the desire for a peaceful Europe but the constructs within which it is framed is to fluid and to ethereal for it to be understood with any degree of certainty. Therefore I maintain my view. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2023 17:16:35 GMT
Yes. No. Why? Why did you vote for your choice of candidate , to work for other peoples interests ? ...I'm not sure what you mean by "our interests". I'm pretty sure that what interests me is not what interests you? So on that simple metric alone the concept fails. I'm not in favour of the welfare state but that is merely a component of what constitutes "Government" at the moment. One therefore looks at the components that make up this entity from which one must choose and see how closely it aligns with what I think fits best into my philosophy....which kidda answers your question....
Why did I vote for a candidate. One is more preferable than another.....that doesn't mean that I think they are looking after my interests.
Not about what interests you or me. This may help. in one's (own) (best) interest(s) to one's advantage; as a benefit to oneself. Hence we ( including you)choose the nearest candidate that fits the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 17:16:36 GMT
we do that every 4 or so years....or you want a referendum on everything? Not every issue involves giving away sovereignty.. of course it doesn't...I'm not sure what point you're making? |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 17:18:18 GMT
...I'm not sure what you mean by "our interests". I'm pretty sure that what interests me is not what interests you? So on that simple metric alone the concept fails. I'm not in favour of the welfare state but that is merely a component of what constitutes "Government" at the moment. One therefore looks at the components that make up this entity from which one must choose and see how closely it aligns with what I think fits best into my philosophy....which kidda answers your question....
Why did I vote for a candidate. One is more preferable than another.....that doesn't mean that I think they are looking after my interests.
Not about what interests you or me. This may help. in one's (own) (best) interest(s) to one's advantage; as a benefit to oneself. Hence we ( including you)choose the nearest candidate that fits the bill. ...sorry it's probably the wine but I don't follow you....my apologies... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2023 17:29:00 GMT
Not about what interests you or me. This may help. in one's (own) (best) interest(s) to one's advantage; as a benefit to oneself. Hence we ( including you)choose the nearest candidate that fits the bill. ...sorry it's probably the wine but I don't follow you....my apologies... You are overthinking it . People vote for a candidate that will act in their best interest . Either directly ( lose tax, bigger pension etc) , indirectly ( a candidate who follows their political ‘ philosophy’ ie make them feel warm and fuzzy inside ) or a mixture of both . Let’s leave it there . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 9, 2023 17:33:38 GMT
Not every issue involves giving away sovereignty.. of course it doesn't...I'm not sure what point you're making? Well you say we dont need referendums because we have General Elections every 4 years. If Sovereignty is given away then it doesnt matter what we vote for as we cannot change anything. Easy example is trade policy - when we were members of the EU it didnt matter who you voted for at a GE as the UK Government had no power to control trade policy. So allowing the people a say on whether sovereignty should be given away to a foreign entity is the only democratic thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 9, 2023 17:37:04 GMT
Well that is wrong - the future direction of travel is exactly the same as its been since 1952.
If you want to live in a European superstate then fine but to refuse to allow the people a say on that and tell them they must defer to the views of politicians is hardly democratic. But then democracy and the EU are strange bedfellows. I wouldn't disagree with you to the extent of the concepts of Kant being integrated into an overarching view of the cosmopolitanisation of a European vision and the desire for a peaceful Europe but the constructs within which it is framed is to fluid and to ethereal for it to be understood with any degree of certainty. Therefore I maintain my view. Name a single instance since 1952 where a change led to power returning to national parliaments from the centre - but you wont find one. Every change involves individual countries ceding more power to the European buracrats in Brussels. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 17:40:13 GMT
...sorry it's probably the wine but I don't follow you....my apologies... People vote for a candidate that will act in their best interest . Either directly ( lose tax, bigger pension etc) , indirectly ( a candidate who follows their political ‘ philosophy’ ie make them feel warm and fuzzy inside ) or a mixture of both . Let’s leave it there .  ....yeah more than likely....it's been a long day....and the wines flowing! |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 18:51:35 GMT
I wouldn't disagree with you to the extent of the concepts of Kant being integrated into an overarching view of the cosmopolitanisation of a European vision and the desire for a peaceful Europe but the constructs within which it is framed is to fluid and to ethereal for it to be understood with any degree of certainty. Therefore I maintain my view. Name a single instance since 1952 where a change led to power returning to national parliaments from the centre - but you wont find one. Every change involves individual countries ceding more power to the European buracrats in Brussels. ...of course that's kindda the principles upon which cosmopolitanism is based on....I mean very superficially.....? You also have to look at many other aspects as well which I assume you're agglomerating "power" as? |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 19:28:47 GMT
of course it doesn't...I'm not sure what point you're making? Well you say we dont need referendums because we have General Elections every 4 years. If Sovereignty is given away then it doesnt matter what we vote for as we cannot change anything. Easy example is trade policy - when we were members of the EU it didnt matter who you voted for at a GE as the UK Government had no power to control trade policy. So allowing the people a say on whether sovereignty should be given away to a foreign entity is the only democratic thing to do. Unpacking this....
"So allowing the people a say on whether sovereignty should be given away to a foreign entity is the only democratic thing to do."
why? why was there no referendum earlier then? This was going on for decades so why did Cameron accede to a referendum when as a country we were so far down the road? Presumably because he thought his charisma and charm would win through...he fucked up though thankfully.
Anyway, I guess the referendum was only lost because the arguments by the remain lot were even crappier than the leave bunch...all the referendum has done now is sow a division in the country. So do you think we should we have a referendum if we go to war? We should presumably have a referendum about our position in NATO as we are bound in terms of both money and sovereignty per article 5 as well? You think we should get out of NATO?
People complain about foreign aid a lot too, should we have a referendum about giving money to other countries? Human rights laws per our treaty agreements with the UN, should we have a referendum on that as well as we have both legal and financial obligations under UN membership commensurate to treaties we have signed....
and and and....we can have referendums all day long......
"Well you say we dont need referendums because we have General Elections every 4 years. If Sovereignty is given away then it doesnt matter what we vote for as we cannot change anything." No I said in my view referendums are a sign of weak governance...but in any case surely this is what a manifesto is supposed to lay out....isn't it? Each party tells me what their position is on a particular issue and I weigh that up and vote accordingly...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 9, 2023 21:24:45 GMT
Well you say we dont need referendums because we have General Elections every 4 years. If Sovereignty is given away then it doesnt matter what we vote for as we cannot change anything. Easy example is trade policy - when we were members of the EU it didnt matter who you voted for at a GE as the UK Government had no power to control trade policy. So allowing the people a say on whether sovereignty should be given away to a foreign entity is the only democratic thing to do. Unpacking this....
"So allowing the people a say on whether sovereignty should be given away to a foreign entity is the only democratic thing to do." why? why was there no referendum earlier then?
A very good question - the main answer is that politicians didnt want anyone upsetting their plans. FWIW had we had a referendum on each stage of EU expansionism we would never have needed a referendum on membership and would still be in the EU. Had there been democratic approval for the loss of Sovereignty at each stage then those in favour of leaving would have an impossible job basing a campaign on the undemocratic nature of the EU. Why not? - what is the issue with allowing the people a say?. For instance would you block a referendum on unification in Ireland? - if not how would you deal with the ensuing violence? But governments are not bound by their manifestos - so a false argument. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 9, 2023 21:38:42 GMT
Why not? - what is the issue with allowing the people a say?. For instance would you block a referendum on unification in Ireland? - if not how would you deal with the ensuing violence? ...because in most instances "people" are too fucking stupid to understand the issues and the consequences involved thus rendering an administration moribund and open to the ebb and flow of fucking twitter and facebook; the ability to plan strategies and form alliances or positions becomes impossible because nobody would take a government like that i.e run by referendum seriously. I mean seriously.....!!?? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 10, 2023 7:01:17 GMT
Why not? - what is the issue with allowing the people a say?. For instance would you block a referendum on unification in Ireland? - if not how would you deal with the ensuing violence? ...because in most instances "people" are too fucking stupid to understand the issues and the consequences involved thus rendering an administration moribund and open to the ebb and flow of fucking twitter and facebook; the ability to plan strategies and form alliances or positions becomes impossible because nobody would take a government like that i.e run by referendum seriously. I mean seriously.....!!?? yet the system has worked well in Switzerland for almost 200 years.. |
|
....yeah more than likely....it's been a long day....and the wines flowing!