Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    **** them, thanks to a democratic vote we are now in charge of our own destiny on our terms, Not Brussels.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    The electorate chose the wrong decision in the last 2 elections as well and the last 2 referendums. Eventually we got to consider if voting should be allowed in the first place, if they keep picking the wrong answer, what's the point? We need a system like they had before parliament came into being
    define what the wrong decision is though? for people who voted leave, they did not get the wrong decision. While I was disappointed with the result and I will most likely leave the uk after my degree (and try avoid paying any of my student loan back aha), the majority went for leave so thats what it should be I guess

    you want a monarchy again where we dont choose who comes into power we just have to go with whoever is born into it? thats a awful idea
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom_BCFC)
    **** them, thanks to a democratic vote we are now in charge of our own destiny on our terms, Not Brussels.
    you mean the conservatives (atm) and board members of international companies are right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Fisherman don't need to know how their industry fits in with national policy. All they need to know is who's going to do best for fishermen. The notion that the fishermen should be content with some career politician saying 'yes well you will get shafted over but don't worry it's all part of a grand scheme that other people will benefit from, trust me I know what's best for you' is absurd.



    No one is saying have a referendum on everything, but one every now and then on major decisions is hardly beyond the realms of reasonable expectation ffs.

    We shall see.
    Are you a fisherman? How do you know so much about fishermen? Seriously do you catch fish for a living. It seems like you do. Or is your dad a fisherman .
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Fisherman don't need to know how their industry fits in with national policy. All they need to know is who's going to do best for fishermen. The notion that the fishermen should be content with some career politician saying 'yes well you will get shafted over but don't worry it's all part of a grand scheme that other people will benefit from, trust me I know what's best for you' is absurd..
    politics is about compromises

    and, no category of people can actually get everything it wants : and yes, they have to fit in a comprehensive national policy

    to claim the contrary is absurd
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom_BCFC)
    **** them, thanks to a democratic vote we are now in charge of our own destiny on our terms, Not Brussels.
    the UK would be much more in charge if it would stay as part of the EU rather than as an isolated mid-range "power"

    and this is true for trade in goods, services, investment, not to speak of security and external policy in general

    the days when Empire (or even Commonwealth) ruled the waves and all the rest are over : now, it will be, most likely, just "little England"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    politics is about compromises

    and, no category of people can actually get everything it wants : and yes, they have to fit in a comprehensive national policy

    to claim the contrary is absurd
    Of course not, but everyone is entitled to seek it. There's nothing absurd about not simply bowing to what other people say, because they claim they know better. There's a big difference between talking with fishermen, hearing their concerns and seeking a fair compromise, and what you appear to be implying, which is the fishermen should know their place and trust their political betters have their best intentions at heart.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Of course not, but everyone is entitled to seek it. There's nothing absurd about not simply bowing to what other people say, because they claim they know better. There's a big difference between talking with fishermen, hearing their concerns and seeking a fair compromise, and what you appear to be implying, which is the fishermen should know their place and trust their political betters have their best intentions at heart.
    everyone is entitled to discuss, make proposals, protest and march, and dialogue is always a good thing

    but, in the end, someone has to make decisions, making compromises and trying to find a global balance between competing interests : and this cannot be the interested categories themselves, but some overarching body. And this is how representative democracy works
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    everyone is entitled to discuss, make proposals, protest and march, and dialogue is always a good thing

    but, in the end, someone has to make decisions, making compromises and trying to find a global balance between competing interests : and this cannot be the interested categories themselves, but some overarching body. And this is how representative democracy works
    I'm not sure what point you're making now.
    The UK's EU membership is a pivotal enough decision that a referendum was warranted. Any notion that a certain policy is too important to be left to the masses is beyond insulting. Lets not forget said representatives that won the General Election put in on their election manifesto in the first place. The referendum wasn't magicked out of thin air or initiated by mob rule.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The UK's EU membership is a pivotal enough decision that a referendum was warranted.
    that's your opinion

    in my view, information about the EU in the general public is still totally insufficient in order to make an informed decision, so the subject matter does not lend itself to use the referendum as the appropriate tool for a democratic decision

    in my view, this is a case where representative democracy is much more appropriate than direct democracy
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    that's your opinion

    in my view, information about the EU in the general public is still totally insufficient in order to make an informed decision, so the subject matter does not lend itself to use the referendum as the appropriate tool for a democratic decision

    in my view, this is a case where representative democracy is much more appropriate than direct democracy
    And how much of your view there is tied to the fact that we happened to vote for Brexit? Is an opinion only ill-informed if it isn't one you agree with?
    Secondly, can't emphasise this enough, the referendum was a manifesto pledge, made by our benevolent and esteemed overlord representatives who happened to form government. This referendum happened precisely out of the process of standard British representative democracy that you cherish so much.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    And how much of your view there is tied to the fact that we happened to vote for Brexit? Is an opinion only ill-informed if it isn't one you agree with?
    again : what I said is that the level of information about the EU is far too low to ensure a well-informed decision by the general public. As a consequence, it is a bad subject for a referendum

    more in general, I think that referendums are only appropriate under special circumstances (I gave some examples)
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Secondly, can't emphasise this enough, the referendum was a manifesto pledge, made by our benevolent and esteemed overlord representatives who happened to form government. This referendum happened precisely out of the process of standard British representative democracy that you cherish so much.
    so what ?

    Cameron (and his party) made an error. We are all paying the price.

    Is representative democracy infallible ? no, it isn't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    again : what I said is that the level of information about the EU is far too low to ensure a well-informed decision by the general public. As a consequence, it is a bad subject for a referendum
    That's the whole point of campaigning periods. What's the arbitrary level of information being available you deem to be sufficient?

    (Original post by mariachi)
    more in general, I think that referendums are only appropriate under special circumstances (I gave some examples)
    Yeah I saw your examples. You think we should have referendums on coups and wars?

    (Original post by mariachi)
    so what ?

    Cameron (and his party) made an error. We are all paying the price.

    Is representative democracy infallible ? no, it isn't.
    So what? I'm pointing out that the referendum happened under the auspices of representative democracy. It happened entirely within the established system of governance. Stop trying to invent loopholes to invalidate what happened simply because you don't like the result.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Stop trying to invent loopholes to invalidate what happened simply because you don't like the result.
    stop making up things about my ideas and efforts

    of course that the (consultative) referendum is valid. I am however pointing out why in my view it was a very bad idea, and why direct democracy is not a valid substitute to representative democracy, especially for issues with a high technical content

    and that's all : and it's also quite late, so, good night
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Surely this is the best solution?

    The remain people are happy because they get to stay in the EU.
    The leave people are happy because they get to see all this Parliamentary Sovereignty they've been banging on about for ages.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    There are a couple things which may happen if Parliament decide to screw over the people.

    1. Gas pipelines occupied and shut down. This will cause London to go into a black out.
    2. Ports occupied and no goods or services let though.
    3. Hackers will bring down all Government websites and DDOS them constantly.
    4. Petrol tankers will be blocked with Petrol stations.
    5. Key London roads will be occupied blocking traffic.

    And I saved the best till last. There might be mutiny in the British MOD. If that happens there won't be any soldiers to get the power stations back up & running.

    It may sound scary but some group might actually be daft to EMP London.

    Either way: EMP. Power Plant Occupation, Gas port Occupation or Road blocks you can see this happening:





    And where do I come in? I am a doomsday prepper and I specialise in self-sufficiency. Basically whatever happens these rebel groups are going to need supplies to keep them going. That is where me and my allies come in.

    The Civil war has already started.

    Be very afraid. These arent empty threats.

    But anyway Chaos is a ladder.
    http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNH...0services.aspx
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    We don't
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would nuke Milton Keynes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    T
    Immigration was obviously a hot topic. Me personally, I have no issue with large scale immigration so long as the government funds services in line with the increased population. However the jist of the Remain campaigns argument over this was Luvvies and students singing Kumbaya and career politicians telling ordinary people that their problems that they are facing first hand were all imaginary.
    So as you can see, people who voted Leave did indeed weigh up all the facts and made an informed decision. They just, shock horror, came to a different conclusion to you.
    I would argue that the line was rather 'don't blame immigrants for the failure of successive governments to invest in public services and housing'.

    Blaming immigration for overcrowded public services speaks more about a failure to invest and a failure to build than it does for immigration. That line attacks the symptom, rather than the cause.

    There is also the obvious hypocrisy of politicians like Farage on the leave side who favor less government funding for public services (low tax, low spend economy) yet when it comes to immigration, they suddenly .care massively about our poor public services. It just strikes me as opportunist, they care about public services when it suits them

    I don't think immigration is the most wonderful thing in the world, nor do I necessarily think we should have absolute freedom of movement. What I was concerned about was people blaming immigration rather than blaming a lack of investment which was the real cause.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wait for Farage to retract his annual resignation
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Again
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.