UKC

On the Today programme this morning random* people in (I think) Wigan expressed their baffled frustration about the failure of the government to deliver Brexit.  The point was to illustrate the growing support for a no-deal 'just get on with it' Brexit.

It was clear that the people asked had no clue as to why this is all so difficult, all they could see was a middle class elite trying to frustrate their (as they saw it) clearly expressed wishes.

So, if we really believe in the will of the people, what other issues should we resolve by asking them?

How about binding referendums of the entire (UK and NI) population proposing:

• Reinstatement of the death penalty for murder?
• A basic universal income for all?
• Compulsory childhood vaccination?
• Legalisation of Class B and C drugs?
• Doubling the national minimum wage?
• Abolishing the national minimum wage?
• Abolition of tuition fees and reinstatement of maintenance grants?
• Abolition of all fee-paying schools? 
• Banning zero hours contracts?
• A two child policy?
• Irish reunification?   
• Normalisation of the law in Northern Ireland to conformity with the Human Rights Act?
• A zero net immigration policy?
• Abolition of any obligations to bilingualism anywhere in UK?

* You probably don't get a representative sample of the population by asking pedestrians in Wigan during the middle of a weekday. 

I think those issues are bit too easy to need a referendum. You only need a referendum when the issue too complex for Parliament, the details too esoteric and technical, the effects too far-reaching and uncertain, and impacts potentially extreme, but also enormously diverse depending on where in the country you are and what your personal circumstances are. That's when you call a referendum.

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether to have a Civil War or are we sleep walking into one anyway?

You've missed income tax.

I vote for much lower income tax.

With more spending across the board for the NHS, Education, Pensions etc

As soon as things can't get sorted out by a dozen of you discussing it in one room you need to start thinking about introducing representative government. Referenda take the discussing and THINKING out of the process. 

I think that's one of the major problems when TV/Radio/Press speak to people in the street during the day - the vast majority of the people you get are retired/"sick"/unemployed/of independent means.

They never seem to speak to those (of us) who actually work for a living and pay the taxes that keep those idle buggers in the manner to which they've become accustomed.

You only get civil wars when you seriously p*ss off young healthy males and they have access to weapons.   Pissing off a bunch of unarmed xenophobic pensioners is risk free unless you are a Tory dependent on their votes.   What are they going to do? They aren't healthy enough to scare anyone and they aren't working so who cares if they go on strike.

The people government should worry about are the middle class remainers who have actual economic power and influence over corporate decisions and are likely to use it without making any fuss.   It will be a lot less visible than riots but infinitely more damaging and harder to recover from than a few broken windows.

A side-note. Is that the Beeb "demonstrating support" or is that the Beeb drumming up support for a no deal Brexit?

What on earth are they doing? Shouldn't it be their job to inform listeners who just want to "get on with it" that Brexit won't go away the day after we leave without a deal, in fact it will smack them very hard round the head with a bat, and then we'll spend the next 10 years at least being bogged down by it.

Balanced journalism my arse.

  A bit like UKC then?

To be fair, the hook of the story was that the local MP had been, I think the word was 'deluged', by emails demanding that we just got on with it.  That's interesting because it perhaps implies a focused online campaign to push on a no-deal Brexit at a crucial point in the process. 

The voxpop came across as lazy but they just needed to ask someone in the relevant constituency and had limited time.  I'm not implying a conspiracy but it was pretty annoying.  

I assume the purpose of your post was to highlight how referendums aren't always a good way of making decisions for the country, and you're right of course they aren't. 

That's the reasons they are very rare events, and normally reserved for questions of the fundamental direction or future of the country rather than one policy choice or another. That's why we would have one for joining and/or leaving the EU, and for Scotland's independence choice. And why we wouldn't have one for each little detail of exactly what terms we might leave on. 

They are issues that affect what the UK (or Scotland) are as nations, not simply a minor detail of how they are run.  For that, we have parliament and supposedly well-informed MP's to decide on our behalf, as elected by us. In the case of the EU referendum, the PM called a vote on whether to have a referendum and our MP's decided on our behalf overwhelmingly that the choice to remain in the EU should be given to the people, and so it was.

I doubt very much if votes were proposed to hold referendums on many of the things you've listed that they would get through parliament for fairly obvious reasons. 

To clarify, I didn't hear the segment and I have no idea about local sentiment in Wigan. 

I had seen a suggestion (albeit from a local Remain campaign group) that in Cornwall, the BBC had been canvassing for views but had been deliberately excluding any Remain voices and views, including the group itself who had attempted to make contact.

I think we will quite likely see more referendums if either the Brexiteer Tories or Trotskyite Corbynistas stay in power.   They are a very convenient way for populists to get something stupid done without having to take responsibility for the details or consequences in the way they would if it was an official government policy rather than just a question for the electorate.

My bet would be on the Tory right going for a referendum on capital punishment next.  Probably fudging the question in some way to split the vote and if they get their 51% for hanging mass murdering-islamic-terrorists arguing that it was actually a vote for public crucifixion and flogging for shoplifters.

I do agree that the three referendums we had under Cameron were on issues that should be settled by referendum. Major constitutional issues should ultimately be decided by the electorate.

However, Cameron used them for personal political gain, to put an issue to rest and remove thorns from his side. You could certainly say that there was a public desire for the AV and Scottish refs, given the rising support for Lib Dems and SNP, but Cameron's intention was never for the public to have a fair and informed choice on the issue, but simply to bury the issues (and those raising them).

There was absolutely no need for the EU ref at all. It was a democratic outrage to conceive it and foist it upon the public in the way that it was, and the damage it has done to our democracy is breathtaking.

For the record, I think we ought to have had referendums on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, but in a mature, grown up way, as other countries were able to manage.

Sadly, I don't think this is all that far fetched.

Ok, whats next to be sorted out?

Right.  Including the referendum we did hold.

I guess my point is, at what point due we drop the pretence that we have to do this solely because an ill-advised and appallingly poorly-worded (and advisory) referendum says we have to do the impossible?

Last night's Ten Years of Turmoil programme on the Greek Euro crisis was interesting. Ultimately, even when Syriza (elected specifically to face down the EU's austerity demands) held (and won) a final referendum rejecting the EU conditions, Tsipras realised that he had to accept them because the alternative would result in Greece being expelled from the Eurozone.  The majority of Greeks were against leaving the Euro but, when asked, they were also against accepting the economic reality that went with being allowed to stay.  

Ultimately, Tsipras, a radical populist, took an unpopular but necessary decision and exercised some leadership.  Is there any danger of some senior politician here doing this?

Hasn't Brexit demonstrated that you should NOT call a referendum when the effects are uncertain and the details esoteric and technical.

I agree in that there was definitely a motivation by Cameron to propose holding one, with his thinking being that it would be an easy remain win and the issue would be dealt with once and for all and everyone could move on. Like most of us thought he misjudged the people's views on the EU and somewhat shot himself in the foot. 

However, I think the very fact the referendum was so close with such a high turn out went to show that regardless of his personal motivations for holding the referendum it was certainly a question that needed to be asked. Tension had been building for years and getting ever strong in the last decade, we had reached a point where 12% had chosen to vote for UKIP in the general election, and many more besides weren't exactly pleased about the EU. 

Something needed to be done and I think it's right we got the choice on this occasion.

Activate your irony detector. 

No, it's the BBC reporting on a very real body of support for no deal.

I don't think that is the BBC's job - they should be reporting, not pushing an agenda.

I cannot see what evidence you have that it is unbalanced. Indeed, you simply seem to be advocating unbalanced journalism which suits your own views,

I really do get fed up with the bashing the BBC seems to get from all sides (Lerft/Right, Remain/Leave, Yes/No) when it's balanced approach means, quite rightly, that it gives air time to diverse opinions.

I'm still not convinced. The Ipsos Mori issues index had never shown any significant concern about "Europe" as an issue since 2007, until the referendum campaigning actually began. I don't think the rise of UKIP can be entirely attributed to Euroskepticism specifically. I think they were also in part a protest vote, and latched onto general anti-immigration sentiment.

I'm willing to believe that there was a significant proportion of the electorate who were ready to vote out given the opportunity, higher than the Ipsos Mori polling revealed, but I do not believe it was 52%. I wouldn't like to put a figure on it myself. I do think that promises of a bright future, anti-immigrant sentiment, the desire to give the establishment a well-deserved kicking and emotional attachment to the NHS gave the leave vote a massive boost. My personal belief is still that, given a sober rendition of the facts and a mature, hysteria free campaign, Remain would have comfortably (but not emphatically) won.

Perhaps referendums should be reserved for issues that are (a) not very important and (b) fairly simple. Maybe things like which side of the road we should drive on.

See my point relating to Cornwall. Yes, it's a biased anecdotal source, but if they've been deliberately playing down support for Remain then they are pushing an agenda.

They have a duty to inform, not give people a platform to air their misinformed views without challenge. Given the BBC's reputation if they let a mistruth slip by without challenge or correction, they give credibility to that mistruth.

Why did they interview Mark Francois on live TV? It's well known that he's a bolshy gobshite with nothing of substance to say, yet they invited him on air without any opposing views, and failed in any way to challenge him when he went off on a vicious diatribe about hating Germans. What journalistic justification is there for that?

Because that approach results in Question Time, an ugly, farcical shouting competition, which actively degrades political dialogue. The BBC could easily choose to run it in an informative and balanced way, but instead they choose to consistently invite panellists like Isabel Oakeshott who they know will whip up the crowd and produce a ton of vox pops that will be shared online.

EDIT - added the final sentence.

"Maybe things like which side of the road we should drive on."... St Teresa could then take that and compromise properly with all variants and hey presto: we drive down the middle

Well I got fed up of the lack of diversity on Question Time - Farage has been on 32 times!

Yes.  I don't want to be a hypocrite here, I had sympathy with his decision to have a referendum (not the internal party ones - I think he genuinely also had a democratic motive) and thought Remain would easily win.

But, I never imagined the question asked would be so unconditional and impractical.  Nor did I foresee the degree of dishonesty and manipulation that the campaign would involve.  I'm still wondering where the Electoral Commission was when the Big Lies were being told. 

In any case, I think it's perfectly acceptable, indeed necessary, to recognise that there comes a point when the disadvantages become so obvious and serious that a true leader would have the courage to back away for the good of the country and take the electoral consequences. 

If a Greek populist can manage it, surely a British Prime Minister could do it. 

The other 'leavers', those who can and will leave instead of stay to fix someone else's mess.

jk

Diverse opinions should be aired and reported. But claims need to be fact checked and liars need to be challenged over their untrue claims. 

When a climate change denier or an anti-vaxxer is interviewed, they need to be challenged about the lack of scientific evidence for their views. When someone promises you a unicorn, they need to be challenged about the lack of evidence of the existence of unicorns.

When someone lies about simple facts and numbers, they have to be challenged on them and the correct numbers and sources should be reported, not just repeating a claimed figure because it makes for a sensational headline or soundbite.

The vast majority of our media (including most of the BBC) makes little or no attempt to do this. They are therefore complicit in allowing people to push their agendas. 

So which direction did we choose, was it Norway or No-way?

The very same obvious reasons the brexit referendum should have died in parliament.

jk

And was subsequently re-elected.

I've been thinking about this recently and it's funny isn't it?  There's been all this talk about "delivering the will of the people" but I'd guess that if you were to hold a referendum on all sorts of subjects the will of the people might come back with some unworkable results.  For example if the public were asked if VAT and income tax should be halves what do you think the answer would be?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that what we the people want isn't necessarily the best for the country, maybe sometimes the government has a responsibility to tell us what it is that they're doing, why they're doing it, and yes, you might not like it's the best for the country.

David Cameron was a weak man, took the easy option and bowed to populist pressure, and has made an almighty mess.

24/7 live rolling news does make this very difficult, there is no time for researchers or editors to intervene. Journalists have a conflict of interests (balancing maintaining access against becoming an uncritical mouthpiece) and they cannot be expected to be experts able to refute nonsense off the cuff, false challenges are as damaging to trust as ignored lies.

jk

"That's why we would have one for joining and/or leaving the EU, and for Scotland's independence choice. And why we wouldn't have one for each little detail of exactly what terms we might leave on. "

the difficulty is that non-one really knew what leaving actually meant  - it is only the detail that tells us that. so we voted for or against an idea (peppered with lies and misinformation) that bears no relation to the current reality. so we should have another referendum now that we know what it is likely to mean

 “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Clever chap Churchill, the referendum was a stupid idea. 

I see what you are getting at concerning the BBC and I despise the same people you mention to whom the BBC sometimes give a platform. It is a very difficult balance they have to achieve between allowing people to speak who represent the views of a segment of the population and pointing out when those views don't stack up with bare facts And sometimes things just are a matter of opinion. The BBC does not always get it right, but at least they try and are fully accountable when they don't. I am personally very interested recently to have heard the, to me mindless, Brexit at any cost, xenophobic, leave opinions being aired - it explains why this country is not taking a rational decision to abandon a crazy course of action in leaving the EU; these views, however deluded are, I am afraid, out there and influential.

Overall I think the BBC do a fantastically brilliant job (I think they have been exceptionally good on Brexit)  and we should count ourselves lucky to have them - one of the best things about living in this country.

It does make it hard and it would obviously be impossible to fact check absolutely everything in advance.

But that doesn't excuse an almost complete lack of any fact checking or a lack of updates to existing stories once the truth has been established. And people certainly shouldn't be able to keep rolling out the same lies in scheduled interviews and debates without being challenged. The public deserve better than that.

 Think you are correct, quite a few would vote for a reduction in income tax without thinking it through.

It is a short term view - more money to spend, without considering what might happen if they need medical treatment in the future.

Oddly enough this is the view of political parties. They want to present something that appeals to the electorate and can be delivered quickly. As we have seen recently when politicians get involved in something with real long term consequences they make an appalling mess.

While I can accept David Cameron thought the result of the 2105 election would be another coalition with the LibDems, after he discovered it wasn't and therefore he had to have the EU referendum he should have really got to grips with presenting a well argued campaign for Remain. Unfortunately, the Remain campaign was woefully inadequate.

Dave 

Your fortune telling skills are to be admired but, personally, I think that, by 2105, David Cameron will be too old to form a coalition with anyone...

Ooops. My apologies to anyone who might have been upset by the thought of David Cameron being in power in 2105.

Dave 

We only hold referenda on issues of major constitutional change so the only one in your list that fits the bill would be Irish Unification. Most of us wouldn't get to vote on that of course, like we didn't on Scottish Independance but the Irish would.

Despite the complexity involved they would be considered capable of making that judgement and it would be almost inconceivable that their choice would not be respected.

Actually, it is very conceivable that it wouldn't be respected. If Scotland held an independence referendum without Westminster's permission, do you think it would be respected ?

I included that one as example of exactly that issue - who gets to vote?

You are right, it would be almost inconceivable that Conservative MPs would vote against the implementation of a referendum for a nation's right to self governance. A narrow margin of victory means that the opinion of everyone on the wrong side of the dividing line should be ignored to deliver the will of the people.

So there is absolutely no way that on 9 December 1997, Theresa May, Phillip Hammond, Liam Fox, Owen Paterson, Ian Duncan Smith, David Davis, William Hague, John Redwood, John Whittingdale, Andrew Lansley and Bernard Jenkin would have voted against the will of the welsh people, attempting to prevent the implementation of the Welsh devolution vote and the creation of the Welsh Assembly.

Just like there is no way that the 2005 Conservative manifesto would have included going back to the Welsh people to check whether the will of the people had changed now that the welsh people had had time to realise their foolish mistake now that they knew what they had voted for.

I must have imagined these events happening.

How quickly the will of the people can become an inconvenient, temporary position to be ignored when the will of the people goes against their own political agenda.

In the same way as there is absolutely no way that Jacob Rees-Mogg would have said, in 2011, that the obvious way to run a referendum on leaving the EU was to have a first vote and, if Leave were successful, a second vote once the terms of any leaving arrangements were known.

I always thought nothing could make me despise far-right people more than I already did, but the utter absence even of any intellectual honesty in the present shitshow has shown me that I was wrong.

jcm

The notion of 'the will of the people' is absolute bollocks anyway. It is the language of dictators, and treats 'the people' like one person. Let's just remember that 'the people' have a very split will on this, they are not at all firmly decided, and latest opinion polls suggest this split will has swung slightly the other way. 

Extraordinary that you've already got a 'Dislike' for disliking dishonesty.

The "Willy" of the people - a complete cock-up! 

You're ignoring the fact that this is Ireland and the resurgent terrorism implications there would be they voted for reunification and were denied it.

I look at it like a logic gate, it was a simple "do you want to stay as we are or leave the EU."  

The result was leave, so article 50 was inacted. That is the end of the decisions made by referendum. We had our say, now it's back to parliament as usual. They will decide how best to steer the ship now, maybe we'll get a trade deal, maybe we won't, maybe we'll prosper with no deal maybe we won't.

Noone knows what will happen over the coming decades but what we do know is we'll be facing it as an independent nation, outside of the EU. 

And for balance, no one really knows where the road would have lead if we'd have staid in the EU either. Yes nothing would have changed overnight but who knows where we'd have ended up, it's not like EU membership is sure fire road to success vill. 

Your typical Remainer is absolutely terrified by the prospect of change.

I'm afraid that's complete bollocks. Sorry, but it doesn't deserve a more eloquent response.

Don’t worry. ‘Remainers’: the young, those with some education and people with jobs will be resilient to change. Can you say the same of leavers?

I think they’d put tanks on the streets before they’d let it go.

"Facing it" sounds bold and resolute. Come what may we will be free!

Won't we be trying to forge brand new international trade agreements subject to legal mechanisms eg the WTO court in Geneva? Won't we be trying to re-establish trade with Japan having excluded ourselves from recent relationship forged between Japan and the EU? Won't we be trying to re-establish trade deals with Commonwealth countries which will be subject to legally binding treaties? Does independent mean we can choose to ignore international law?

Given the preferences of the ERG I think we are much more likely to face the future as a de facto protectorate of the USA with a status similar to Puerto Rico. Brexit is the endgame of Britain's long decline. We are going to realise, finally, like eg Greece and Denmark, Austria and Hungary, we were great once, now we are small.

Not change. This change.

If there was a credible positive case for leaving I'd be banging the drum with you but there simply isn't.

jk

A surprisingly large number of people seem to believe this.  They are convinced of the  absolute primacy of the UK Parliament and the Supreme Court with all international issues subject to negotiation.

The United Nations General Assembly - dictators?

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 21(3)

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

Completely, utterly, 180 degrees wrong.

What seems to be foremost on leavers minds is a return to old ways / times - "take back control", "our borders", "better off on our own". All steps backwards to the past, all inward looking sentiments. As part of the EU, we had progressed to a nation trading freely with 27 others, with the ability now to live and work where we choose within any and all of the 28 member states. Remainers would like to see these freedoms progress further; they are embracing and welcoming change, not being scared of it. Leavers seem to want to go back to some warm cuddly version of the past; they have no progressive vision for the future, only a scenario where everything is safe and known. It is they who are terrified of change.

Right.  You only have to look at the ERG to see how forward looking they are.  Onwards to the 18th century!

Hang on there! That's me you're calling an idle bugger. Worked hard for 40+years, paid taxes and pension contributions, now 68 and retired but still "working" as an unpaid charity trustee and committee member of various voluntary organisations. Take it back please!

Martin 

Did you not see the ??

Anyway, if you are working as a volunteer then you're not going to be ambling about a shopping centre like the lazy buggers that they interview are you.

You are retired though.

If a referendum were held on Irish unification it would be done under the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and in cooperation with the Republic of Ireland.

Are you seriously suggesting that in those circumstances we would put tanks on the streets to prevent the result being implemented? If so you are deluded.

In reality I think most British governments would be quite happy to see them go.

Not necessarily.

Yes.

No, you are very naive, and historically blind.