Do you seriously think the vast majority of the British public have the first clue whether being in or out of the EU is best for Britain?
Do they f*ck!!!
Most will vote 'leave' because there's too many immigrants for starters!
We're not smart enough for any referendum. That's not a reflection on us as a country, just the nature of referendums. How much independent research do you think people did before voting at the AV referendum? I reckon an average of about 5 minutes, because most people would have done none. People voted no because they didn't like Nick Clegg and because that's the way the wind was blowing at the time.
When you put a deeply complicated question to the country people seem to approach it as if they're answering a survey about what cheese they like. "I'm out, bloody europe meddling in our business. Keep the pound!" or "I'm voting to stay in because otherwise no one will buy our stuff". An utterly, utterly useless way to make policy.
The only thing that surprises me with referendums is the low turn out, everyone's always an expert in this country with wild, uninformed opinions about all and sundry that they're dying to tell everyone about. Yet no one turns up when they're asked.
Anyone who's informed on the issue will know that the EU is nothing more than an agreement between a bunch of thieves as to who gets to exploit whom. People who work for wages or salaries have absolutely no stake in this issue. It's irrelevant. Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.
> Given the way most of the debate has gone for the Scottish referendum, and what happened with the AV referendum, you would have to say yes, the UK is too stupid.
Erm, dunno about that. Setting an actual date for a referendum would force out into the open, some folk who actually do have a fair few brain cells but don't see any need to bother at the moment. I'd be interested to hear The Thoughts of Chairmen Carney, Johnson and Portillo for example. And I don't think the Scottish referendum is a bad precedent; it has forced one set of protagonists to actually come up with a set of scenarios which can then be ruthlessly tested for plausibility (and found wanting).
Sounds perfectly reasonable. It is also consistent with historical precedent in electoral matters.
Take, for instance, the Government of Ireland Act 1920. This introduced Proportional Representation of the Single Tranferable vote variety. It was introduced all across Ireland. Although this was fine for the Irish, the British were too feckin thick to use STV until recent times when limited introduction has taken place.
A few shouty voices do not represent the population of the UK.
Yes, we are smart enough, just like we're smart enough to pick our politicians. It's a dangerous thing to claim that we shouldn't be allowed to make our own decisions and should leave them to the clever people - however those "clever" people are picked.
> You all know that the Daily Mash is a satirical website, similar to The Onion in America? Please tell me you're all taking this seriously as you're in on the joke?
Are you seriously saying satire exists in a vacuum from making serious points and criticism. I should stop reading private eye!! Of course people can see the satire in the daily mash article, of course they can see the serious points in and around that satire too.
Donnie on 13 Mar 2014 - cpc7-sgyl34-2-0-cust116.sgyl.cable.virginm.net
In reply to mattrm: 'Everyone knows this is satire, right?', asks man.
A grown up man who finished GCSE English more than a decade has asked whether everyone else knows an obviously satirical article is satirical in order to demonstrate his own grasp of the concept, unwittingly outing himself as a bit slow.
Casual observer, Tom Logan observed, '..... etc. and so on.
Voter turnouts in general elections is always the majority, and us choosing our politicians has got us here - you think we're doing badly? I don't, certainly not compared to those countries without democracy.
Yes , I would say that joe public is not to be trusted with the European question .
I'm not being mean here but to quote a line from 'Sherlock' : ''You're an idiot ! Oh , don't worry , most people are ...''
The future of the the UK should not depend on knee jerk reaction votes in which all common sense and rational thought are abandoned .
Politicians are not really much better than you and I at making choices , but I get the idea that if the general public are given the choice they will (fueled by xenophobic writings in the Daily Mail and Express ) make a stupid decision based on their views of immigrants who 'come over here , taking our job's '' etc .
Whats your alternative. Vote on everything? Vote on tax rates, vote on healthcare spending, vote on minimum wage etc. Or vote on a party and leave them to make "hopefully informed decisions in our best interest"..
> We're too stupid and uninformed to make a decision on anything. Why don't we abandon voting entirely?
That's a good idea. We're probably too stupid to elect people to do it for us either. What we need someone to make all the decisions for us and run the country. But a group of people will just bicker too much. Perhaps just a single person? Someone who perhaps also has control of the armies... a singular leader that dictates everything perhaps...
> That's a good idea. We're probably too stupid to elect people to do it for us either. What we need someone to make all the decisions for us and run the country. But a group of people will just bicker too much. Perhaps just a single person? Someone who perhaps also has control of the armies... a singular leader that dictates everything perhaps...
> Whats your alternative. Vote on everything? Vote on tax rates, vote on healthcare spending, vote on minimum wage etc. Or vote on a party and leave them to make "hopefully informed decisions in our best interest"..
I'd have very occasional referenda on absolutely key issues, of which I consider the EU to be one.
Further we need to find a way to make our "democracy" much more interactive. e.g. MPs should be subject to recall more easily. There should be more direct democracy but there must also be institutionalised restraints to stop politicians making unfeasible and contradictory promises.
A person can be very intelligent, but if they are not informed enough they cannot make a good decision.
I'm not very well informed on the whole issue, that is my own fault but it could be that the relevant information is not being distributed enough. I'd say ditto for the vast majority of the population.
I listened to Mandelson on R4 on this , and his slimey fingerprints are all over this one. (but he did not rule it out, just said if some more powers are to be taken away, then the Labour party would offer one. If the status Quo prevails then no vote.
I don't know who is clever enough to vote though. Some are, some not, and some that think they are , are probably amongst the least competant.
The truth is that this is not really about politician's wanting to give the people freedom of choice, this is about one party of politicians wanting to have power over all other parties and they think offering people a perceived choice about their future direction in Europe is going to be a big vote winner (and they may be right). The fact that the population has no idea how to vote or even what information to base their votes on is irrelevant (to the politicians).