Debate – Referendum vs General election. Watch

Poll: What is the best way forward in breaking the deadlock?
A General Election (9)
69.23%
A referendum (Please specify what options there would be) (4)
30.77%
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 months ago
#1
Prime Minister Boris Johnson will table a motion tomorrow for a GE on the 12th of December. The Lib Dems and the SNP have joined forces to demand an election on the 9th.

For Bojos plans he needs 2/3rds of Mps to vote in favour under the FTPA, while the SNP and Lib Dem plan only needs a majoirity. There is also the possability of amendments for 16 year olds to vote. Labour have said they will block a GE on Boris terms until and extention has been agreed with the EU.

Some remain backing Mps wish for there to be a second referendum.

What do you think will best break the deadlock?
A GE?
Or a referendum?
Who would you vote for in a GE?
What options should be on a second referendum?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 months ago
#2
Having a General Election about Brexit will make the purpose of a GE very confused. GEs are supposed to be about deciding who is your representative in parliament and collectively who should govern the country with the policies they have set out to follow. It is difficult to decide which party has the best education, health, welfare, justice, etc. policies when all anybody is talking about is Brexit.
1
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 months ago
#3
i've added a poll to the OP. I will update the OP with some more links tomorrow.
0
reply
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 months ago
#4
What do you think will best break the deadlock?
Our current Zombie Parliament is a mess, and as long as it continues there will be a deadlock. So a General Election is the best way to break it.

Who would you vote for in a GE?
Well, I can't legally vote but if I could I would be voting for the Conservatives (I know, absolute shocker) I wouldn't vote for the Brexit Party out of the fear of them splitting the Leave vote and ending up with a Labour/LD MP (as we saw in the Brecon by-election)

What options should be on a second referendum?
Well, firstly there shouldn't be one. But if need be, there should be just Leave and Remain. However, there would be a sub-question for those voting Leave asking if they want Boris' deal, or no deal. This would prevent splitting the Leave vote and having Remain win in the case of 3 options.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 months ago
#5
It won't be a GE in any meaningful sense. It'll just be a proxy referendum with the extreme Lib Dems against the extreme Tories/Brexit Party and Labour standing in the middle of the road waiting to get run over. Disastrous, and solves nothing.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 months ago
#6
I agree with 04 and Reality Check, this would not be a normal GE run on proper (normal) manifestos and would be a warped version of a second referendum.

Last year, I was supportive of a second referendum and then fell out of love with the idea. However if we're going to have a GE and then argue that X gives a mandate for Y but Z doesn't give a mandate for Y then we may as well do the thing properly.

If there were to be a second referendum, then we should have two ballot papers. One for Leave vs Remain and one for Leave with the deal vs Leave with no deal. 16-year-olds should not be given the vote, to mirror what happened in the last referendum as closely as possible.
0
reply
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 months ago
#7
The numbers aren't there for a referendum. For the numbers to be there you need a change due to an election. This is basic logic. Either the Conservatives get a majority and pass the deal or they lose seats in which case you can have a referendum.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 months ago
#8
A GE, where I would vote Tory (but I can't vote, so it's a moot point anyway)
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 months ago
#9
There's already been one referendum and a large number of people/politicians didn't respect the outcome. There's no reason at all to expect a second referendum on the same question to do anything other than prolong the intolerable dithering and paralysis, because whichever side lost would ignore this one as well and we'd just be back to where we are now, with the same MPs going over the same old stuff.

A general election would be far better than another referendum so I'd go for that, but it's entirely possible the outcome would be another hung parliament with the same leaders taking the same positions afterwards.

Ideally, though, I'd rather see if the existing Brexit bill (which has been backed by a majority) can make its way past the delays and sabotage attempts first. Then if it can, we can have a 'normal' GE next year on something that isn't Brexit (in theory).
0
reply
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 months ago
#10
Honestly, all potential options seem troubling currently :indiff:
0
reply
winterscoming
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 months ago
#11
There are two separate problems which need to be solved independently of each other, so both are needed, although the order in which they happen is important too.

The first problem is underpinned by the fact that the UK is currently stuck with a constitutional issue surrounding a majority popular vote in which the winning option had no legal or political substance behind it and did not produce a deliverable outcome, with every attempt so far to satisfy the result being incompatible with all of the original ideas, principles and objectives set out by the winning side. It is impossible to make any reliable retrospective assertions about which deliverable outcome (if any) would actually have the support of a majority of the UK population; the 2016 referendum did not provide a proper choice because one of the options had no real legal or political meaning nor substance behind it. The result didn't answer or resolve anything, the referendum posed a huge fundamental question and left it essentially un-answered, so that question still needs answering directly by the UK population.

The only way to resolve this problem and get a real answer is to perform (at least one) exercise much like the 2016 referendum using a concrete, legally-binding, set-in-stone Leave option based around a clearly-defined leave outcome (Whether that's the current deal, TM's deal, No deal, or yet another different deal so long as that other deal provides the same level of clarity as those we've already seen). This fixes the problem with the 2016 vote by repeating the question using two real, tangible choices instead of just leaving one of the options undefined. This ensures both outcomes have a clear and legally-binding interpretation which no government or parliament would be able to reinterpret, contest or override (At least, it seems to be the case that UK courts are able to ensure it happens since it'd be a constitutional issue)


The second problem is that the UK has a paralysed minority government which can't even deliver a budget. This is clearly unsustainable given that there's no sign of any stable coalition appearing any time soon. This needs to be resolved with a general election after the EU exit issue is resolved to ensure that election issues and questions about who is in government, and who sits in parliament do not become conflated nor confused with questions around how to handle EU Exit.

Having any kind of election before resolving the EU exit issue is resolved creates a problem in itself by having a result which will be heavily skewed by Brexit-motivated tactical voting and uneasy agreements between parties who may be able to find some agreement around one issue but will disagree on everything else. The most likely outcome (regardless of the electoral system) is yet another hung parliament, with no single party looking like it has the ability to get anywhere near 320 seats. We could easily end up with yet another zombie government and zombie parliament which is still unable to do anything, in which case that election will have had the same effect as shifting deckchairs around the Titanic.

Aside from that, it's also worth remembering that we're unfortunately stuck with a First-Past-The-Post electoral system for choosing MPs (who in turn choose the government). This is inadequate for providing a majority consensus on the first issue (not impossible, but highly improbable, particularly in the current climate) with many MPs able to be elected without anything even close to a majority in their constituency - it's very common for MPs to win while only having the support of 30-40% of their constituents, which in-turn means that we can end up with a government which falls a long way short of a popular majority across the country, meaning no democratic mandate to make any fundamental constitutional decisions.
Last edited by winterscoming; 3 months ago
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 months ago
#12
Re what winterscoming said, I'm beginning to think that we need serious reform of the Lords. Either scrap it and replace it with a Senate that elects one member per county, scrap the entire idea of an upper house or bring back all the hereditary Lords' seats. Whatever happens, you need to agree that there are serious problems with a solution that involves lobbyists sucking up until they get rewarded with a peerage.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 months ago
#13
I would have preferred a referendum but that ship seems to have sailed, sadly.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 months ago
#14
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Re what winterscoming said, I'm beginning to think that we need serious reform of the Lords. Either scrap it and replace it with a Senate that elects one member per county, scrap the entire idea of an upper house or bring back all the hereditary Lords' seats. Whatever happens, you need to agree that there are serious problems with a solution that involves lobbyists sucking up until they get rewarded with a peerage.
I am in favour of a small upper chamber that is elected, and I would give it the same delaying and scrutiny role it has now. Perhaps under 100 people. I'd also have a period of time after leaving the House of Commons before you can stand for election to the Lords.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 months ago
#15
(Original post by barnetlad)
I am in favour of a small upper chamber that is elected, and I would give it the same delaying and scrutiny role it has now. Perhaps under 100 people. I'd also have a period of time after leaving the House of Commons before you can stand for election to the Lords.
One member per county, with obvious exceptions (eg, the Highlands being treated as one county). This would give us around 170 senators, with the rest being directly appointed/elected by proportatoin representaion.
0
reply
Shellshocker93
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 months ago
#16
(Original post by Reality Check)
It won't be a GE in any meaningful sense. It'll just be a proxy referendum with the extreme Lib Dems against the extreme Tories/Brexit Party and Labour standing in the middle of the road waiting to get run over. Disastrous, and solves nothing.
This is the blurb they should use for Season 3 of "Brexit", the Netflix series
1
reply
Shellshocker93
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 months ago
#17
Tbf. We should just flip a coin. Everyone MUST accept the decision and not argue otherwise they get locked up in the Tower. Government than commits and does it without any complains or scrutiny from the media (actually complete Brexit media ban, no Brexit news allowed).
Then we get on with our lives and take the German approach as to how they teach about WW2 as far as Brexit in concerned.
1
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 months ago
#18
(Original post by Shellshocker93)
This is the blurb they should use for Season 3 of "Brexit", the Netflix series
There's a Netflix series?
(Original post by Shellshocker93)
Tbf. We should just flip a coin. Everyone MUST accept the decision and not argue otherwise they get locked up in the Tower. Government than commits and does it without any complains or scrutiny from the media (actually complete Brexit media ban, no Brexit news allowed).
Then we get on with our lives and take the German approach as to how they teach about WW2 as far as Brexit in concerned.
Absolutely not!
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 months ago
#19
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
There's a Netflix series?

Absolutely not!
The joke.

Your head.
0
reply
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 months ago
#20
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
There's a Netflix series?
Just to reiterate the point above
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (363)
59.12%
Yes- I don't like it (33)
5.37%
No- I want it (174)
28.34%
No- I don't want it (44)
7.17%

Watched Threads

View All