After Merkel's migrant disaster, should referendums be required before major changes?

I am not saying referendums should be held for all political decisions, but if a political leader wants to make a major decision, such as Merkel has in this case, should they be required to hold a referendum to gain the approval of the people?

Reply 1

Squirrel777

2

We should not consider Merkel's solution but Jeremy Corbyn's solution as he understands sustainable immigration

Reply 2

TheArtofProtest

2

No - Most of the electorate, when they do bother to cast their vote, are largely ignorant of the issues involved.

It'd be "Tyranny of the ignorants".

Reply 3

Squirrel777

2

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No - Most of the electorate, when they do bother to cast their vote, are largely ignorant of the issues involved.

It'd be "Tyranny of the ignorants".

You are wrong, what a childish claim

Reply 4

CAElite

19

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No - Most of the electorate, when they do bother to cast their vote, are largely ignorant of the issues involved.

It'd be "Tyranny of the ignorants".

Yeah thats democracy in general. Take it or leave it.

Reply 5

TheArtofProtest

2

Original post by Squirrel777

You are wrong, what a childish claim

Not so. Our current form of democracy brings out the self-serving, self-interest and narcissism that it was never intended to do.

Instead of asking how best we can serve the country, we demand democracy serve us, as individuals.

That is why it is "Tyranny of the Ignorants".

Reply 6

Lady Comstock

OP

14

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No - Most of the electorate, when they do bother to cast their vote, are largely ignorant of the issues involved.

It'd be "Tyranny of the ignorants".

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you take a different approach in relation to the Syrian airstrikes and the fact that most people were against them, yet they were pushed through by Parliament?

Reply 7

TheArtofProtest

2

Original post by Lady Comstock

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you take a different approach in relation to the Syrian airstrikes and the fact that most people were against them, yet they were pushed through by Parliament?

If I recall my position correctly, it was that Parliament did not need to vote in order for the PM to authorize military action.

My position was that the vote was a farce, something that was unnecessary and which simply highlighted the disconnection some politicians had with the electorate, bearing in mind that the Conservatives were whipped to vote in favor, over the concerns raised by those on the Select Defence Committees.

Reply 8

mmm778899

1

Original post by TheArtofProtest

No - Most of the electorate, when they do bother to cast their vote, are largely ignorant of the issues involved.

It'd be "Tyranny of the ignorants".

Its "ignorant" to fear rape?

Reply 9

Josb

6

Original post by Lady Comstock

I am not saying referendums should be held for all political decisions, but if a political leader wants to make a major decision, such as Merkel has in this case, should they be required to hold a referendum to gain the approval of the people?

I would support popular referendums like in Switzerland.

Reply 10

TheArtofProtest

2

Original post by mmm778899

Its "ignorant" to fear rape?

It's "ignorant" to resort to illogical and irrational rhetoric, as justification for discrimination, racism, xenophobia or prejudice.

Reply 11

TheArtofProtest

2

Original post by Josb

I would support popular referendums like in Switzerland.

It'd be quite unfeasible for the UK, given the populace and the general apathy towards politics.

Reply 12

Ethereal World

3

Original post by TheArtofProtest

If I recall my position correctly, it was that Parliament did not need to vote in order for the PM to authorize military action.

My position was that the vote was a farce, something that was unnecessary and which simply highlighted the disconnection some politicians had with the electorate, bearing in mind that the Conservatives were whipped to vote in favor, over the concerns raised by those on the Select Defence Committees.

Do you think the conservatives used it as a political tool then potentially bevause with a whipped vote it would obviously be passed?

They knew it would get a lot of media attention which inevitably focused more on divisions in the Labour Party (especially Benn) and less on the actual issue I.e military action in Syria?

So it was a good bit of 'EVERYONE, look at how divided labour are, what a joke, lol'.