Hot Topics

Should the British public be allowed to decide it's own future?

  hssutton 16:30 10 Jan 2014
Locked

According to Lord mandleson the answer is no. Surely it then follows that the public should not be allowed to vote in a general election. Maybe we should save the expense of elections and scrap democracy.

Lord Mandelson said the public should not be given a vote on whether Britain stays in or leaves the EU because the outcome would be a “lottery”.

The former Labour Deputy Prime Minister said EU membership was too important to be placed “in the hands” of such an unpredictable body as the public.

  Quickbeam 09:36 17 Jan 2014

"I had to resort to a rather simple analogy because people seemed unable to grasp the concept that we are better off in the EU."

That's quite a sweeping statement of fact... providing you're already a belieber in the EU.

But so far in this thread I've felt no more converted to fully embracing the EU, than if you were selling me a religion based on arguments that your religion is surely the only true one to be embraced, because you believe in it 100%.

However, this topic will pop up regularly between now and any referendum. And only then will the official line be put out for us to consider. But in the EU posts between now and then, I'll only repost what I've said so far, fm will continue to post what he's said so far, Flak999 will continue to post what he's said so far, the FE will continue to post what he's said so far, spider9 will continue to post what he's said so far, xxx will continue to post what he's said so far, and nobodies opinion will change one iota until the cards are all face on the table...

  Quickbeam 09:38 17 Jan 2014

And on that point, I'm dropping out of this thread simply because it's too difficult to follow so many pages on a mobile device during the day.

  spuds 10:17 17 Jan 2014

"I had to resort to rather simple analogy because people seemed unable to grasp the concept that we are better off in the EU".

But who are these people, because whatever the case there will always be divisions for acceptance or rejection, and the EU or Common Market as been in existence to prove itself beyond doubt. But it hasn't done so, and perhaps the introduction of the Euro and its failures may have proved this?.

  Forum Editor 20:36 17 Jan 2014

"Clinging to the myth that the UK is not better off isn't the way to make a sensible case."

Very nicely put - I agree wholeheartedly.

  kpatz 21:16 17 Jan 2014

I thought the original post was:- Should the British public get to decide it's future? Surely the answer is yes, If we are competent to vote in elections then we must be allowed to vote on such a big issue in the future, If not then Britain is no longer a democratic society. All issues decided by a vote in a way is a lottery of sorts, and this is no different.

  spuds 14:39 18 Jan 2014

This must be getting very serious, because over the past two/three month or so I seem to be getting quite a bit of literature from my local LimDem MEP, a person who I have never contacted and know very little about even though he's been 'in office' since 2009.

This mornings 'broadsheet' really went to the limits of explaining 'things', including providing at least 10 website links for further important information on the EU.

One particular link and statement was about 'The Council of Ministers'. Seems rather strange that an MEP should express "The Council rarely meets in public, although it promised to do in the Lisbon Treaty. Nation ministers also fail to publish Minutes of their secret meetings afterwards". My remark to that is why he and the other MEP's haven't looked into this further, and done something positive about it?.

  Forum Editor 18:02 18 Jan 2014

[email protected]

"...we must be allowed to vote on such a big issue in the future, If not then Britain is no longer a democratic society."

With respect that's nonsense. If democracy depended on a national vote each time there was a major issue we would be forever voting.

We elect a government at regular intervals - that's democracy at work. A referendum is something that is held because the government feels that a particular issue is of such national importance it warrants a separate vote.

You might want to change your username, by the way. It's a bad idea to publish your email address in a public access web forum.

  Flak999 14:39 20 Jan 2014

spider9

As you probably are aware I am an atheist so the pronouncements of David Silvester strike me equally as ridiculous as allowing unelected members of the Church of England to sit in the house of Lords making judgements which effect the law of the land!

But we live in a democratic country where freedom of religious expression is protected by law. So if Councillor Silvesters sincerely held religious beliefs tell him that the recent extremes of weather are a visitation upon us all from the almighty, as a direct result of the Prime Ministers actions in legalising homosexual marriage who are we to ridicule him?

In most of the worship of gods of various flavours there is an inherent belief in the ridiculous, so what is the difference between believing that god has visited the extreme weather upon us as opposed to, lets say the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the living body and blood of a man who supposedly lived two thousand years ago?

Both premise are equally ridiculous in my opinion!

  Flak999 14:58 20 Jan 2014

spider9

"As are most UKIP policies, in mine!!"

Well, we shall both have to await the verdict of the electorate, to see who is right. Wont we?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

What’s the difference between VPN and Antivirus and do you need both?

These are the best album covers of 2019

How to pick the best iPhone insurance

Les bons plans gadgets high tech (2020)