Referendums/Referenda

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't see people picketing with signs saying "I'm confused, please tell me what to do". I really don't understand what you're saying

LOL. You're quite right.

I agree with JD and GM here. Lots of issues have complex technical details so it makes sense to appoint a representative, equip him or her with a team of objective advisers, and ask them to make a decision based on that advice and the broader political agenda.

Too many referenda would result in the death of politics.

Having said that, I am optimistic that people are smarter than they appear, and I believe that decisions should be made at a local level wherever possible.

The current hot topic here is whether we should have a referendum on a possible European Constitution.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion, as it might result in significant changes to sovereignty. However, I worry that most people will vote with their anti-foreigner heads on.

Blair has been quite clever in committing to one at this stage: at a stroke he has neutered one of the Tories' main lines of attack and strengthened his own hand in negotiations with the rest of Europe over what's in the Constitution.

[brownjenkins]

a compromise might be non-binding referendums on important issues... that way our politicians would have a real idea how the people who do follow the issues and are likely to vote feel about the issue

[The Gaffer]

Don't you think that would just be a time-wasters charter? If it's not a binding vote, then why have it? You could commission a poll of focus group instead and probably get just as accurate information.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Blair

What's that?

has been quite clever in committing to one at this stage: at a stroke he has neutered one of the Tories' main lines of attack and strengthened his own hand in negotiations with the rest of Europe over what's in the Constitution.

Well yes, but it still seems to me like he won't win the referendum. I mean, that's why it's being called, not so much because it is a vital issue concerning our soverenty but because so many people objected to the change and not asking the people would seiously weaken his position. I envisage a situation where he will lose this referendum and his refusal to go with the people (like with Iraq, despite my belief that was right) will make him more unpopular. I can't see him winning the 2005 election either. Nor can I see Michael Howard as PM. Frankly I'd like to see Oliver Letwin (Shadow Cahncellor) or Boris Johnson (Shadow Minister for paper clips and being a blithering buffoon) as PM. For this to happen Mr Blair will have to win the next election to force Howard to stand down....

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Don't you think that would just be a time-wasters charter? If it's not a binding vote, then why have it? You could commission a poll of focus group instead and probably get just as accurate information.

polls are largely ignored in our society, since you can usually get the answer you desire by how you choose to sample

a referenda would reflect the actual views of all voters who care... as opposed to those that might have an opinion, but are unlikely to actually express it unless asked

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Janny
Well yes, but it still seems to me like he won't win the referendum. I mean, that's why it's being called, not so much because it is a vital issue concerning our soverenty but because so many people objected to the change and not asking the people would seiously weaken his position. I envisage a situation where he will lose this referendum and his refusal to go with the people (like with Iraq, despite my belief that was right) will make him more unpopular.

I suspect that it will turn into a referendum on Blair's leadership, since the issues over the Constitution are complicated and uncertain (even if you can get through the impenetrable morass that is the EU prose style). More people will vote on Iraq or tuition fees, or on Europe as a whole, than on the Constitution in particular.

Which is one problem of referendums - but if the people want to be confused in their motives, who are their representatives to decide which motives don't count?

[Janny]

Originally posted by sun-star
Which is one problem of referendums - but if the people want to be confused in their motives, who are their representatives to decide which motives don't count?

Well, I suspect that may be a good reason for a 'retry' when the first referendum doesn't yield the right result. coughIrelandcough. What was the reason stated by the Irish govt. for the re-vote?

[The Gaffer]

What you said about polls is true, BJ. They also demonstrate how people would happily vote for mutually exclusive things if given the chance.

I suspect that Bliar (sorry I misspelled it before, Janny ) may stand down after the next election (assuming he wins). I think he wants to win as many elections as Thatcher, but I believe there is a pact between him and Gordon Brown and that Brown would take over.

This would release Brown from any referendum promises over Europe.

I would like to see it happen, though, because I think that the pro-Europeans have been running scared of the Eurosceptics for too long. There are also some hard facts about Europe that we need to confront (incompetence, corruption, lack of accountability, over-centralisation, selective application of the rules, Franco-German power).

Yes, Letwin and David Davis and are about the only presentable faces the Tories have got. They're still in a mess and Howard has too much baggage to win this time I think. Of course, there's always Ken Clarke

Boris Johnson for PM! Actually no, because then he wouldn't be able to host Have I Got News for You, which is clearly his calling in life.

[Janny]

Of course, the Restaurant Pact! That's a fine way to make yourself popular if he were to resign just after the election, especially if it releases Mr Brown from commitments. I still don't believe Mr Blair could win the next election, however I think Mr Brown may be able to do so. I'd still prefer him to Mr Howard. I think.... what an excellent selection of people we have to choose our leaders from

[The Gaffer]

It could be worse: think of the French (Chirac vs le Pen) or the Italians (Berlusconi)

I agree: I'd vote for Brown but not Bliar.

[Janny]

I like the implication the Italians have no opposition party!

[The Gaffer]

The fact that Berlusconi is like us having Rupert Murdoch and Reg Kray all rolled into one as Prime Minister obviates the need for me to pretend to have any idea who the leader/s of the Italian Opposition is/are.

What about you, janny, are you a phile or sceptic on the Euro front?

[Janny]

Yeah I did actually check if the Italians had an opposition before I posted last time...
I like Europe. It's a nice place from what I've seen, but I'm still a sceptic on this front. Maybe I'm a 'heritage-ophile'. I like the pound. I'm not inspired by the brilliance of beauracracy which prescribes heights of gravestones and the such like. The majority of what actually filters down to people is pointless legislation which are aparently ignored by the rest of Europe anyway. But I'm not 'educated' on the subject.
You're a 'phile', right?

[The Gaffer]

In principle, yes, but I think there are some serious problems with how it operates.

Like you say, it sometimes seems as if the rules are applied selectively (e.g. France and Germany's budget deficits), it's remote, unaccountable and opaque. Also, the French farmers are far too strongly represented, and it hasn't yet grown out of the "Franco-German stitch-up" which were its origins.

Having said that, I don't think we're going to make it any better by hanging around dithering on the fringes.

I also think that it gets an unfairly bad press over here, particularly in England: it's such an easy target. For some reason it's all right to say "I hate the French" on the telly, where one wouldn't be able to say "I hate Muslims" or "I hate Asians".

As for the pound, I'd gladly swap it for one that I don't have to change every time I travel there. Since I do business with European customers, it would also make that simpler. Also, with the strong pound at the moment, we look very expensive compared with European competitors.

When I see people going on about wanting to carry on using pounds and ounces I just think "get a grip".

[sun-star]

Unfortunately the Constitution won't address any of those problems. Much as I hate to admit it, whichever government apologist it was who said this was a "tidying-up exercise" was right. The real problem for me is the ridiculous democratic deficit - it's actually shocking when you start looking into how much relative power the Parliament and Commission have (i.e. the elected body has none and the non-elected one has loads). Until they deal with that, referendums are the way to go IMO (look, I kept on topic )

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I also think that it gets an unfairly bad press over here, particularly in England: it's such an easy target. For some reason it's all right to say "I hate the French" on the telly, where one wouldn't be able to say "I hate Muslims" or "I hate Asians".

I totally agree. It baffles me why you can call the French - or even more commonly the Germans - all sorts of names which are basically racist with barely any condemnation from the media or anyone else.

[Janny]

It's not like the German have ever done anything to us...
Well not in the last fifty years...
*Whistle theme: 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup*

[sun-star]

Racist

[Janny]

What is the origin of 'Janny', as you well know?
Is the general feeling then that Europe is corrupt and biased towards the central alliance (who have no stopped squabbeling over Alsache/Lorraine!)?