The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

I think from time to time its good to allow the people to vote, if up to you would you allow this vote?

We get to vote every 4-5 years in a general election and the government elected makes decisions. That's is the fundamental way our democracy works. Sure you can make a case for a different style of democracy, one in which referendums are commonplace, such as in Switzerland, but that isn't our approach.

So in my lifetime where I've lived there have only been 3 referendums (one I was too young to vote in) and 2 of those have been on the EU - isn't that a tad excessive in a system where we don't really use referendums. So if it important to have a referendum on the EU, twice why nothing on:

A democratically elected House of Lords
Whether we should be a member of NATO
Whether we should retain the monarchy
Whether our nuclear deterrent should be renewed
Whether we should have capital punishment
Whether we should retain membership of the UN
Whether we should be part of the Eurpoean court of human rights system

etc, etc

All these seem similarly important and long ranging - yet we've not had a vote on these. So given that we've had 2 votes on the EU, surely all of those are long overdue - do you agree.

In reality, unless we radically change our system of governance we should only use referendums in the following situation; namely where the government of the day puts forward proposals that radically change our constitution of system of governance, which it wants to enact, but really need direct approval from the electorate.

So by those criteria the votes in Scotland, Wales and London fit, the voting reform kind of does (as one part of the government wanted that change), likewise Sindyref but this one doesn't as the government doesn't want to change anything, they want to remain in the EU. Sure if a government proposed leaving the EU (a proposed change with far reaching consequences) then we'd need a referendum but it is bizarre that a government feels it has to put its plans NOT to change anything to a referendum. But of course this is entirely about placating a rump in the Tory party not about anything fundamentally democratic.

[Aruntraveller]

I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg

Well its worked for the Leave campaign so far 

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg

Argument by jpeg, how outstanding!


More seriously, given the manipulation of figures by both sides, what is the argument? As I pointed out as regards Sarah Wollaston, I don't see that you move from one side to the other if that was your criterion.


If it was just about the campaigns, i'd fill in a new box on the ballot paper saying Feck off the lot of ye lying swill pumps and tick that.

[L.A.]

Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.

I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!

[ekim]

Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.

I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!

To be fair, you would have to do that with every politician and I doubt whether the National Grid would stand up to it.  It appears to be part of their training to avoid questions they don't like by either answering a question which wasn't asked instead or rapidly talking out the interview so that the interviewer cannot return to the question.   The Andrew Neil and George Osborne interview last night was a good example.

[Nearly Sane]

Did you hear Redwood this morning on Today: Even when he was forced to concede that Britain did actually pay £350 per week - he still wouldn't admit that the claim was misleading.

I'd have strapped the bastard in an electric chair and applied 10,000 volts up has backside every time he evaded the question!

Did you mean 'didn't actually' and miss out a million

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you mean 'didn't actually' and miss out a million

Actually our net contribution to the EU is nearer to £350 per week than £350 million!

[jeremyp]

I wonder if the Chancellor lying on mainstream TV will push people in a certain direction.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkfVAIPXEAA7WYi.jpg

Well the Leavers' constant lying all the time doesn't seem to have damaged their polling figures.

[SusanDoris]

NS

breathing just a teensy bit easier is because I'm an optimist, I suppose.

Did you hear Alan Johnson in World at One today? I raised a small cheer for him.

[jakswan]

We get to vote every 4-5 years in a general election and the government elected makes decisions. That's is the fundamental way our democracy works. Sure you can make a case for a different style of democracy, one in which referendums are commonplace, such as in Switzerland, but that isn't our approach.

So in my lifetime where I've lived there have only been 3 referendums (one I was too young to vote in) and 2 of those have been on the EU - isn't that a tad excessive in a system where we don't really use referendums. So if it important to have a referendum on the EU, twice why nothing on:

A democratically elected House of Lords
Whether we should be a member of NATO
Whether we should retain the monarchy
Whether our nuclear deterrent should be renewed
Whether we should have capital punishment
Whether we should retain membership of the UN
Whether we should be part of the Eurpoean court of human rights system

etc, etc

All these seem similarly important and long ranging - yet we've not had a vote on these. So given that we've had 2 votes on the EU, surely all of those are long overdue - do you agree.

In reality, unless we radically change our system of governance we should only use referendums in the following situation; namely where the government of the day puts forward proposals that radically change our constitution of system of governance, which it wants to enact, but really need direct approval from the electorate.

So by those criteria the votes in Scotland, Wales and London fit, the voting reform kind of does (as one part of the government wanted that change), likewise Sindyref but this one doesn't as the government doesn't want to change anything, they want to remain in the EU. Sure if a government proposed leaving the EU (a proposed change with far reaching consequences) then we'd need a referendum but it is bizarre that a government feels it has to put its plans NOT to change anything to a referendum. But of course this is entirely about placating a rump in the Tory party not about anything fundamentally democratic.

I'm not a Tory and would feel democratically short changed if denied my right to vote on this issue.

[jakswan]

Argument by jpeg, how outstanding!


More seriously, given the manipulation of figures by both sides, what is the argument? As I pointed out as regards Sarah Wollaston, I don't see that you move from one side to the other if that was your criterion.

If it was just about the campaigns, i'd fill in a new box on the ballot paper saying Feck off the lot of ye lying swill pumps and tick that.

I agree the both sides have stretched the truth with their normal amount of spin, evading questions etc. However '£4,300 cost to families if UK leaves' is a lie.

Also agree you shouldn't decide on the basis of who you think has lied least, just that the claims that side makes should be trusted less.

[Udayana]

NS

breathing just a teensy bit easier is because I'm an optimist, I suppose.

Did you hear Alan Johnson in World at One today? I raised a small cheer for him.

Yes, but question re. Corbyn was pertinent and depressing. After all the reports of how he has inspired a "grassroots revival" he is missing or ignored on this issue - probably the most important on the plate - even if only from the point of view of longer term Labour election prospects (not that that should figure).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

Which tells me something, Mr Corbyn is not news, he is all over the country talking about it, but nobody thinks he is newsworthy.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

But why? It's not as if the Conservative In or Out sides are saying anything newsworthy. even Major and Blair (it seems to me) have had more coverage than Corbyn.

Actually ... I suppose this is ultimately down to his refusal to share a platform with Cameron.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree the both sides have stretched the truth with their normal amount of spin, evading questions etc. However '£4,300 cost to families if UK leaves' is a lie.

Also agree you shouldn't decide on the basis of who you think has lied least, just that the claims that side makes should be trusted less.

The 350 million for the NHS was a lie
 Boris saying he didn't intend the headlines in paper to be about Hitler was a iie. The portal on the Vote Leave site about click here to Register to Vote which Prof D linked to earlier was a lie and possible electoral fraud.

Trust no one is the message that comes out of this

[wigginhall]

I just got a Leave leaflet, headed 'The Facts', which starts off with a bang, and a lie - cost of EU £350 million; then moves smoothly onto EU migration, stated as a quarter of a million, when I thought the latest stats said 160, 000, and non-EU migration is higher; then talks about Switzerland not being in the EU, but doesn't mention its high immigration figures; then on the back has a nice map, showing Turkey poised to join EU, with also Syria highlighted, just in case you didn't realize that FUZZY-WUZZIES are coming here with their mosques and bombs.

Who writes this stuff?  It looks like a kid's A-level project.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh yes I had forgotten about the 12 million Turkish immigrants lie

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not a Tory and would feel democratically short changed if denied my right to vote on this issue.

So I presume you also feel democratically short-changed in being denied a vote on all the other issues I mentioned. Or are you special pleading - in other words I want a referendum on my pet topic (actually you've already been given 2, including the one in 2 weeks time) but to hell with a vote on anyone else's pet topic.

The notion of what should and should not be appropriate for a referendum should be clear and shouldn't be at the whim of party political machinations. So I've been clear - there should only be a referendum where a government wishes to make a change with long lasting constitutional or democratic effects where the notion of a mandate in a general election isn't deemed sufficient and direct consent for that change from the electorate should be required.

This referendum doesn't fit that bill because, demonstrably, the government doesn't want to make a change, it wants the status quo, to remain in the EU.

[jakswan]

The 350 million for the NHS was a lie

Who said that?

Boris saying he didn't intend the headlines in paper to be about Hitler was a iie.

How do you know?

The portal on the Vote Leave site about click here to Register to Vote which Prof D linked to earlier was a lie and possible electoral fraud.

Will check it out.

Trust no one is the message that comes out of this

Agreed.

[jakswan]

just in case you didn't realize that FUZZY-WUZZIES are coming here with their mosques and bombs.

Misreprentation another from of lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

Looks like the Brexit campaign is beginning to unravel. Within 24 hours 2 former Brexit supporting MPs have jumped ship to remain, one tory the other labour.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who said that?

Who said it was a lie - well the now exBrexit campaigner, MP and GP Sarah Wollaston for one, who was in the Brexit high command until yesterday. Not only has she said it is a lie, she has stated that the Brexit campaign know it to be a lie and frankly don't care about lying to the electorate.

[jakswan]

So I presume you also feel democratically short-changed in being denied a vote on all the other issues I mentioned. Or are you special pleading - in other words I want a referendum on my pet topic (actually you've already been given 2, including the one in 2 weeks time) but to hell with a vote on anyone else's pet topic.

Its sad to see you sink so low, its not a pet topic, a political party had it in their manifesto and got elected.

The notion of what should and should not be appropriate for a referendum should be clear and shouldn't be at the whim of party political machinations. So I've been clear - there should only be a referendum where a government wishes to make a change with long lasting constitutional or democratic effects where the notion of a mandate in a general election isn't deemed sufficient and direct consent for that change from the electorate should be required.

I see so you'll decide what we should get a vote on?

This referendum doesn't fit that bill because, demonstrably, the government doesn't want to make a change, it wants the status quo, to remain in the EU.

Thankfully you don't decide.

[Shaker]

Thankfully you don't decide.

And for that let us be truly thankful.

[jakswan]

Who said it was a lie - well the now exBrexit campaigner, MP and GP Sarah Wollaston for one, who was in the Brexit high command until yesterday. Not only has she said it is a lie, she has stated that the Brexit campaign know it to be a lie and frankly don't care about lying to the electorate.

Who said '350 million for the NHS'?