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

Democracy 101 Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yes of course. Citizens are entitled to oppose the result, to do everything legally within their power to obstruct the triggering of Article 50, to advocate for a second referendum, to try to get the government to bring an Article 50 trigger bill so they can vote it down, etc. A decision having been made doesn't bind us for all time, and those who opposed it may continue to do all within their power to bring about their favoured outcome. I do believe that members of the government have a political and moral obligation to give effect to the results of the referendum, though.

    But equally, it is within the rights of those who voted Leave to put psychological, moral and political pressure on those who are attempting to prevent the triggering of Article 50. It is within their rights to call Remainers bad losers, to accuse them of failing to respect democracy, of underlining how chaotic and divisive a second referendum would be.

    The stakes of this decision are absolutely enormous; the most important political decision probably since the war. I would be disappointed if both sides didn't do all within their power, legally, to win; if it's as important as they claim, then of course they should.
    I agree but obviously with some limitations and general civility on the part of both sides.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Churchill had the right of it.

    'The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter'
    Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others we have tried
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Hmm? Sure, why do you ask?
    As a socialist I believe you need some kind of democracy in the economic sphere to have any real notion of democracy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Eventually you end up with Richard


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A bacon sandwich, a bacon sandwich! My kingdom for a bacon sandwich!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    A bacon sandwich, a bacon sandwich! My kingdom for a bacon sandwich!
    Wrong Richard.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Wrong Richard.
    :shh:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I think the lesson learned here is that we shouldn't have referendums, especially when the motivation to hold this particular one was driven by a desire of David Cameron to appease his critics in the Tory party.

    We have a system of parliamentary democracy in this country. We elect our representatives on their party's manifesto and we then leave it for them to make the decisions about running our country. Holding referenda left right and centre makes for a very terse black and white job of a world that is 5 million shades of grey.
    "Left right and centre".

    We had the AV referendum, the Scottish referendum, and an EU referendum since 2010. All on big issues, so hardly "left right and centre". Referendums are a good idea for big issues where there is need for a proper democratic say on something, less so for minor issues where turnout is likely to be low.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think people who think we need to never have referenda need to have a serious think about whether they actually believe in democracy or not.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    I think people who think we need to never have referenda need to have a serious think about whether they actually believe in democracy or not.
    There are various kinds of democracy.

    I have seriously thought about direct democracy. I don't believe in it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    "Left right and centre".

    We had the AV referendum, the Scottish referendum, and an EU referendum since 2010. All on big issues, so hardly "left right and centre". Referendums are a good idea for big issues where there is need for a proper democratic say on something, less so for minor issues where turnout is likely to be low.
    Why should the general public have had a say on our membership to the EU?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    There are various kinds of democracy.

    I have seriously thought about direct democracy. I don't believe in it.
    In principal or just because of the specifics of getting it to be functional?

    As we are now, outside an election year there is little compulsion for representatives to you know, actually do what their constituents want. That just ends up with them doing what they think is best, you are relying solely on good will for said representative not to abuse the system.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Why should the general public have had a say on our membership to the EU?
    Because it's an important issue that has a particularly big influence on our politics and government, same as with previous referendums we've had (and we haven't had many). And the last time the general public had a direct say on the EU was decades ago before it was even the EU in its current form.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Why should the general public have had a say on our membership to the EU?
    The public should have and have had a say on the EU - but it should be through electing eurosceptic representatives.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    In principal or just because of the specifics of getting it to be functional?

    As we are now, outside an election year there is little compulsion for representatives to you know, actually do what their constituents want. That just ends up with them doing what they think is best, you are relying solely on good will for said representative not to abuse the system.
    More so for a country like the UK, though I guess in principle to some extent. I don't believe that the general public have the skill or expertise to understand or know how things should be run. Myself included.

    Representatives not doing what they should be doing is going to happen regardless of what year it is. This is something that should be dealt with, though I don't know how, but I don't see it as a reason to have referendums.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    While it may be democratic, it's not in the best interests of the country to keep banging on about how bad Brexit is, demanding a second referendum, etc. If people had the best interests of the country at heart they would be trying to establish the best way going forward.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    More so for a country like the UK, though I guess in principle to some extent. I don't believe that the general public have the skill or expertise to understand or know how things should be run. Myself included.

    Representatives not doing what they should be doing is going to happen regardless of what year it is. This is something that should be dealt with, though I don't know how, but I don't see it as a reason to have referendums.
    Does the presence of so called representatives actually not just make people less able to make decisions and hence only serve to reinforce the necessity of said representatives?

    For clarity I don't think you could just shift over to direct democracy immediatley, people are currently wholly unprepared for such a practice. However, with a few simple but impactful changes we could see it work. Most important of course needs to be much freer and easier access to information in a non-biased way as well as giving people the skills and resources necessary to examine said evidence.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    The public should have and have had a say on the EU - but it should be through electing eurosceptic representatives.
    Extrapolating that to another rea of policy, how doyou square that with the government plan to re-introduce grammar schools?

    Polling suggests that it is, at best, a contentious policy backed up with little hard evidence, yet the Theresa May government, which never faced a general election, is going to plough on anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)

    Extrapolating that to another rea of policy, how doyou square that with the government plan to re-introduce grammar schools?

    Polling suggests that it is, at best, a contentious policy backed up with little hard evidence, yet the Theresa May government, which never faced a general election, is going to plough on anyway.
    The may premiership is unusual and polls predict she would Winn comfortably.,she should hold a GE before pushing it through though.

    Iif that is a major issue for you vote for a new party or person with a particular view on it, I see no need to take it to the country.



    I say this as somebody informed but relatively neutral about grammar schools.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The may premiership is unusual and polls predict she would Winn comfortably.,she should hold a GE before pushing it through though.

    Iif that is a major issue for you vote for a new party or person with a particular view on it, I see no need to take it to the country.



    I say this as somebody informed but relatively neutral about grammar schools.
    I'm not particulalry bothered outside of it's an idea that doesn't work and isn't backed up by any kind of evidence, was just the firdt hot button issue that came to mind.

    Also, you say I should vote for someone else, provided May doesn't call a GE (she won't), when exactly should I do that? In 4 years time, when the policy is already implemented? Sure you could reverse it but that doesn't get back all the time wasted and children's educations disrupted because a so called representative government chose to pursue a policy with no mandate, no evidence of efficacy and no popular support
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Does the presence of so called representatives actually not just make people less able to make decisions and hence only serve to reinforce the necessity of said representatives?

    For clarity I don't think you could just shift over to direct democracy immediatley, people are currently wholly unprepared for such a practice. However, with a few simple but impactful changes we could see it work. Most important of course needs to be much freer and easier access to information in a non-biased way as well as giving people the skills and resources necessary to examine said evidence.
    I think that people's general lack of understanding of most things makes them less able to make decisions than representatives. One would hope that representatives are informed on the issue before they vote.

    How do you suppose we have un-biased information given to the public, or how we adequately get them involved and well informed?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I think that people's general lack of understanding of most things makes them less able to make decisions than representatives. One would hope that representatives are informed on the issue before they vote.

    How do you suppose we have un-biased information given to the public, or how we adequately get them involved and well informed?
    Again you are relying on hope to get the system to work properly, to me that isnt good enough. Many representitives vote solely based on what their whip tells them to and if we think that the general population cannot have both broad and deep understanding of thousands of different issues its strikes me as unrealistic to expect representitives to either, after all they are just people liek us right?

    There already is a service that holds and distributes un-biased information, it's called the Commons library. First step would be to expand that to act as a public service for all. Secondly I think there needs to be much better access to research papers and publications. Many now are locked behind huge pay walls that mean most individuals are denied access to this information because they are too poor, that is unnaceptable to me.

    That said, this willmall be useless if the education system is not seriously reformed. Currently the education system does very little to foster academic curiosity or rigor favoring instead to get students through tests to fluff numbers. Academic enquiry needs to be put att tje heart of education or else no amount of information will help people make decisions as they wont be capable of examining it in a reasonable manner.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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