Have to agree to disagree then.
I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions. As we found out with the Brexit campaign it was tainted by lies and spending issues. If you can't guarantee a free and fair debate then it should be left to something more stringently regulated..e.g an election. Mind you the Brexit referenDUM was only advisory anyway, so perhaps my problem shouldn't only be with the process, but how the govenment at the time promoted and implemented it's result.
An election instead of referenda on something on a matter of national importance, well that’s most nearly all elections ( just the subject matter changes and given more prominence than other matters), and as we have seen within a major party the are differing opinions within the party just like was on Brexit. Just look at when Parliament was a rabble when given the chance on Indicative voting on Brexit. Also on that matter that doesn’t change the fact that the greater members of Parliament are any more the wiser on the matter than the average voter at large.
The campaign was run along the lines any different the a GE campaign there are many truths half truth and just plain lies packaged as the truth
While it’s true the referenda was only advisory it doesn’t stop the Government/Parliament acting like it was binding in which Cameron declared before hand the result will be implemented, and all this done via Government/Parliamentary regulations/legislative law, Parliament vote gave its consent at every step of the way leading up to the referenda and after on the EU withdrawal bill plus Millers a Supreme Court challenge.
That's one of the biggest problems with MPs and Parliament right now. The quality of MPs is appaling. Some of that the fault of the system but a lot of that is the fault of the public for who they vote in. Just look at the experience and people who were lost at the last election entirely because of Brexit (on both sides of the isle) and the look at the new MPs we got it.
Really it’s representative of a broad cross section of the community, within its representatives we have academics lawyers ex police ex defence nurses doctors right down to MP that were lorry drivers
MPs should be brighter than average, they shouldn't be bred for office and should not be career politicians.
So what are you going to use as your barometer to test if a person is above average to enable them to stand for Parliament? Education level IQ test https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 19.1581077
What they are however, whatever their intelligence is answerable to the people. They don't need to represent all the views of the people who voted them in, it's the other way round. You elect someone who best feels represents you. This ideology of having an MP who bends to the will of the electorate over any topic is wrong.
Agree to a point in 99% of the matters but some matters are more important in one electorate than another or the nation as a whole, if one wants to stay an as elected representative of Parliament one must also have there wits about them if the majority do not support the incumbent views or action in Parliament
See above. It's entirely because of who we have as MPs right now.
Indeed, vote leave and associated parties should never have been allowed to have done what they have. And the connections with people with a lot of money, and certain far right groups in the US is appalling. It isn't conspriacy theory either. Money, elites, vested interest should be nowhere near politics. It's what the US has and they have (they won't admit it) one of the most perverted 'democracies' in the world. EU countries actually lead in this area, but the UK is heading more and more towards the US system. It needs to stop.
That’s the way of the world, money talks and bullshit walks. If you are after some sort of political utopia then public and corporate donations need to stop, membership fees are another source
One way or another it can be associated with Cash for Influence
Yes which is why no major party ever had it included in their manifesto. Because it was and is stupid. Which is why it remained only in a small party, UKIP. And why it stayed there only until Cameron screwed up to save his own party.
That’s plainly wrong:
Jo Swinson said in Parliament in 2008 that the Liberal Democrats "would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe".
2010 election manifesto said it remained committed to an in/out referendum "the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship" with the EU.
Green Party in 2010 supported proposals for an in/out referendum, saying: "It's yes to Europe, yes to reform of the EU but also yes to a referendum"
Labour supported a referendum on the terms of the UK's membership in its 2005 manifesto
One also must be mindful of the European Union Act 2011 in which a referenda lock was put in place on if any further proposal were made to transfer further powers from the UK to the EU via amendments to the Lisbon Treaty
52% was a representation of the nation.
Was never good enough for me and will never be. The reason for, the process etc etc
It was good enough for Parliament since they were the ones who actually voted in the legislation to hold a referenda and did not put any stipulations on any super majority or double majority lock