Any party or any MP can propose a bill in the House of Commons at any time providing for the UK to withdraw from the EU. Not for a referendum, just for withdrawal. So why don't they? Because there is no majority for such a proposal, and there has never been a majority for withdrawal at any time in the past 40 years. Lacking such a majority, why don't Eurosceptics run for parliament at the next general election on a platform for withdrawal from the EU? Because every party which has run on such a platform has been thoroughly hammered at the polls in every election for the past 40 years. The people can indeed be trusted, and they have expressed their views pretty clearly many times over. So where does this referendum idea come from? Obviously, the extreme Eurosceptics have given up all hope of achieving their ends by means of the ordinary democratic processes of the UK, so they have cast about desperately for some other expedient which might give them a slight hope of circumventing parliament. A referendum is all they have been able to come up with - which is an admission of defeat.
I`m not sure it is quite as simple as you suggest. A proportion of the electorate vote as they have always done and how their parents did so new parties start with a big handicap unless they are based on one or more already existing party. Also for as long as I can recall the 3 main parties have not campaigned with exiting the EU as policy all though they have offered a referendum at various stages. Voters have not really had a credible anti EU party to vote for . A referendum seems to offer the electorate an opportunity to vote on leaving the EU without leaving the comfort zone of Lib/Lab/Con. Is that such a terrible thing ? Shame on all politicians/peers who say the electorate cant be trusted to make the right decision. They were quite happy when the electorate voted them in.
It has never been put to the electorate so why you (Pete) are so sure there is no majority for it I don't know. If there is no majority for exiting the EU, as you say, then why don't those in the Westminster Bubble who are predominately pro EU put it to the test, if they win the issue is resolved for a generation or more. As dukesox rightly points out there has been no credible anti EU party. The Eurosceptics, moderate as well as extreme (or are all Eurosceptics extreme in your opinion Pete ?), propose a referendum not to circumvent Parliament but to put the question to the people directly, surely that is what democracy is about. It is the political elite, who are largely pro EU, who are denying a referendum who are anti democratic.
I worry when I see the knee jerk reactions on here. I have no real reason to suppose that the opinions voiced on here are unrepresentative of general opinion in the UK. People seem to be "informed" by the Daily Mail, or fall into traps set by the Telegraph, or any other printed media which has a vested interest in pandering to people's prejudices. There is no real attempt to educate, or look at anything objectively. If the population get a vote, God knows on what basis they will be voting. As far as I can see, they won't be very enlightened. Here in Switzerland, politics is a non-story. The politicians don't curry favour, or provide soundbites. The Conseil Fédéral (the Cabinet) is made up of all parties and language areas. There are only 7 of them. They have the unsexy job of creating policy. This is then voted on by Parliament, but before it is passed into law, it has to be voted on by the people in a referendum. To educate the people, there are programmes on the TV and debates where both points of view are aired. There is much debate. None of this looks anything like the UK with its constant spin, its politics as entertainment and soap opera, and a media which is ridiculously partisan and simply confirms the unenlightened opinions of the newspaper consumers. The UK probably isn't ready for direct democracy, any more than Iraq is ready for any democracy. In which case, giving the people a referendum and expecting them to make the right, grown-up decision probably isn't a good idea.
How do you know they are knee jerk reactions ? I can`t speak for anyone else of course but my desire to leave the EU is something that has grown over the years based on what I have observed both here and abroad. I`m as anti Daily Mail as anyone, I seriously doubt that there are many on here that allow the Mail to tell them what to think.
Oh the juxtaposition of your statement. The "unelected House of Lords" - most of those entitled to vote in that house are Tory. Not just Tory of course but 91 of the 92 are male. Only one female, and all white. Not a lot if democracy there. Prior to that you are talking about lefties circumventing democracy. This is also incorrect. Socialism has centralisation at the core of its doctrine. That's the driver. I don't agree with it either. I think people are right to be worried and angry at how things are going. Still at least I learned you read the Telegraph not the Mail. Better, but not by much!
"Never been put to the electorate" - have you been living under a rock since 1973? The UK relationship with Europe has been an issue in every election over that period, and always with the same clear outcome. You don't know why I am "so sure there is no majority for it"? So are you saying that if a bill proposing withdrawal from the EU was tabled in the House of Commons (which is what I was talking about), you believe there would be a majority for it? In your dreams!
Of course the Eurosceptics propose a referendum to circumvent Parliament. If they had a majority in Parliament, or the slightest prospect of ever achieving one, they would drop the referendum idea like a shot. It is the billionaire media proprietors, who are largely anti-EU, who are trying to circumvent parliament who are anti-democratic.
"Unelected" - it is hilarious how some people rush to describe anyone making any decision which is not to their liking as "unelected", whether they are a peer, a judge, or whatever. They never seem to call people making decisions they agree with "unelected". And they never seem to notice that CEOs of companies, Generals and Admirals, Chief Constables of police, bishops, and newspaper proprietors are also "unelected", among innumerable others.
You are better off ignoring politicians (elected or otherwise) and going your own way in life. None of them want a better UK/Europe/world to live in, they just want to remain in power, line their own pockets and be able to tell you and me what to do.
It is possible to be anti EU and vote for a pro EU party because overall more in their manifesto appeals than any other party, I`m sure some labour voters are anti EU for example. EU membership is now a big issue both here and in some other member states. I really dont see the harm in a referendum. Both sides of the debate have powerful media allies. BBC, Gurniad, Indy etc on one side, Telegraph, Mail etc on the other. Let us have some proper informed debate and allow the electorate to decide . At least then we would all know where we stand whichever way the vote goes. Neither side KNOWS for sure what would happen if we left , it is all opinions based on personal experience or vested interests. This applies to both sides. Glid mentioned that there are several referendums a year in Switzerland, how fantastic, the electorate are really consulted on a regular basis rather than once every 4 or 5 years. Glid, can I ask what sort of issues you get to vote on ?
So putting a token black woman in there would make it democratic..? Has it occurred to you that the United Kingdom is largely populated by white folks..?
The issue of the EU has always been fudged at general elections with parties making vague promises that they never keep. Cast Iron Dave ? I have no doubt that a whipped vote of MP's would not take us out of the EU but I suspect that a free vote of MPs would be close and a referendum of the people of the UK could very well take us out. But unless we have that vote nobody can be certain.
Glidd, I will let you in on a secret, I never read the Mail, ever. I am surprised that you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a Mail reader and even more surprised that you think the people of the UK are not ready for direct democracy because they might give the 'wrong' result.
This is just plain wrong. Tony Blair flooded the Lords, presumably to give his government a free ride.
I wouldn't expect you to read the Mail, johnv. You'll be a Torygraph reader like my folks. I don't recall ever having dismissed everyone who doesn't agree with me a Mail reader. I have had more contact with the Mail since frequenting this site though, because people keep quoting it. When they do, I rarely find I agree with the quote, or it looks like a gross simplification of a more complicated issue. Membership of the EU is a pretty big deal. If the UK is going to vote on it, then there should be a real debate, but that debate is hugely complex - a lot more complicated than "Bulgarians are going to steal my job". I don't know where people will find the neutral ground to have this debate. Not in the papers - they are partisan. People here accuse the BBC of being politically biased and run by lefties, so presumably, TV is not a good place either (and ITV won't want to upset its advertisers). Then, as is frequently pointed out, no one trusts the government or politicians. So in the final analysis, people will just vote according to their gut feeling which has been conditioned for years by stories of imposed EU banana curvature.
Countries as diverse as Ireland, Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria etc can never be successfully governed by one set of rules or one parliament as the needs of those countries are so vastly different.
Let's see now: I think the last vote had 3 questions we were required to decide which from memory were: At some stage, families with kids got a tax break if they put their kids in a crèche so that both parents could work. There was an "Initiative" tabled by one of the parties to extend that tax break to families where one of the parents stays at home to look after the kids, on the basis that looking after your kids was still "work". The people rejected that notion and the status quo remained. The government wanted to increase the annual motorway toll sticker from CHF 40 p.a. to CHF100 p.a. In return, the federal government would assume responsibility for some cantonal roads and certain ring roads and other major road building projects would take place financed by the extra cash. The people rejected the increase. There was no provision for reduced price stickers for multiple vehicles for example ( so I'd have to shell out CHF 200 for the bike and car), we already pay road tax, and linking some road improvements to a motorway tax hike sounded like blackmail. Shop opening times are closely controlled in Switzerland. For example, there is no Sunday opening (although it's more complicated than this - our local shop is open on a Sunday morning). It has been felt that service stations are taking advantage of this to extend the range of things they sell as they can open late at night and all weekend long, thus creeping towards full shop status and providing unfair competition with other shops. We had to vote on whether we were happy with the status quo or whether petrol stations should be more limited in the amount of food they are allowed to sell. We decided we were happy with things as they are. That was the last vote, but they vary a lot. This year we have also voted on changes to political asylum laws and in the past we voted on adoption of the Shengen agreement with the EU, and of course there was the infamous minaret vote a couple of years ago.
Indeed. I'm not in favour of a federal United States of Europe. But there is some form of union that is beneficial. What would be handy is deciding what that looks like ( it may only be economic, not political), rather than stamping your foot, shouting "Don't like it!" and running off in a huff.
