|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 4, 2010 21:45:59 GMT
Such a luddite view Can you explain why the right of petition is no problem in other countries..... try to keep it under 300 words. Not too sure about other Countries, fretty. I am only interested in this Country. This Country appears to have the most reactionary people and a rabble rousing press, I think this Country would abuse this system? What else could they do? BTW, if something like this is introduced, I will be signing everything and anything right down to replacing the State religion with Jedi, just to clog the system up.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 4, 2010 21:59:02 GMT
I know you're not sure. Your disdain for democracy is blatantly obvious.
You do hate your kinsmen with a passion, do you not.
Democracy? You clearly have't a clue.
You do realise you are so closely aligned with the Tories on this one RV, now that is funny
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 4, 2010 22:06:36 GMT
Doh. 5% merely triggers a plebiscite, it doesn't change anything by itself. Do try to keep up at the back. Nah, I've been convinced by the point made already on this thread, that the admin necessary and costs involved in triggering a plebiscite is going to be quite huge, so 5% is really too small an amount to trigger it. I agree with the principle, but not at 5%. 51% is too much, of course, I was being a bit sarcastic. But maybe 30%? That's a reasonably sized minority to suggest that the people triggering the plebiscite might have a point which deserved to be heard. 5% gives hassle-power to a lunatically small minority. Yeah, you have the typical knee-kerk reaction. Lets take an example or two or even three Have you heard of the 'hassle-power of a lunatically small minority' in Italy, Switzerland, or even the US? No you haven't. We're not all like the Scots you know.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 4, 2010 22:19:36 GMT
You do hate your kinsmen with a passion, do you not. No, I just hate halfwits, not the same thing fretty. Actually, I don't hate halfwits, I just hate halfwits drawing up laws, that I may be forced to live my life by. When people who think the best solution to IEDs is to get people from the other 'side' to defuse them and I have four pages of what 'majority' means, it does tend to leave one jaded. You do realise you are so closely aligned with the Tories on this one RV, now that is funny I do not have a problem with being on the same side of decent Tories, as long as they are correct.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 5, 2010 7:38:34 GMT
self hate is very destructive
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 5, 2010 12:36:40 GMT
You do hate your kinsmen with a passion, do you not. No, I just hate halfwits, not the same thing fretty. Actually, I don't hate halfwits, I just hate halfwits drawing up laws, that I may be forced to live my life by. When people who think the best solution to IEDs is to get people from the other 'side' to defuse them and I have four pages of what 'majority' means, it does tend to leave one jaded. You do realise you are so closely aligned with the Tories on this one RV, now that is funny I do not have a problem with being on the same side of decent Tories, as long as they are correct. You are anti-democratic, just like the Tories. I guess that makes you what you normally call right-wing scum
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 5, 2010 13:04:44 GMT
You are anti-democratic, just like the Tories. I guess that makes you what you normally call right-wing scum There is nothing democratic about having complex issues being boiled down to simple yes or no answers. Take an issue that I would support like the banning of ALL guns from society. Do we have a vote on the question: 'Should we ban all guns from private ownership?'. Well if we vote on that subject, how do we frame the law? We need to draw up the law with all the correct clauses, exceptions, definitions etc? Do we vote on them on an indivual basis?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jul 5, 2010 14:05:18 GMT
Extremists of left or right both share a common problem - arrogance and intolerance.
Each of them is totally convinced that:
a) they are right
b) anyone who disagrees with them is not just wrong but positively evil
Until they learn that life's a bit more complicated than that they'll never learn ANYTHING!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jul 5, 2010 14:19:53 GMT
Referendums are alright in principle, but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. If we were to ever decide that when a certain number of the electorate call for it, a referendum must take place, then we must also have in place a system for vetting the subject chosen for referendum. And how would we do that and satisfy this siren call for "democracy in practice"??
A referendum on a specific vexed issue which affects the governance of the nation (for example, on membership of the EU) might well be justified, but once we go down the road of automatically triggering referendums once the required percentage of voters call for it, then we are opening Pandoras box, and we had better pray that "hope" makes its customary appearance at the same time.
Suppose, for example, that there was a call to hold a referendum on lowering the rate of income tax to (say) a 5% flat rate. Or on the abolition of the cars road tax. Or on halving the rate of council tax...I could go on in the same vein. And while we might all pretend that we would act, and vote responsibly, I have a sneaking suspicion that such measures would be carried with a significant majority. And where would we be then?
Referendums have a place at very infrequent intervals, and when the subject matter is carefully controlled. But having them when a set percentage calls for it is a perilous undertaking. Be careful what you wish for!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 5, 2010 14:45:34 GMT
You are anti-democratic, just like the Tories. I guess that makes you what you normally call right-wing scum There is nothing democratic about having complex issues being boiled down to simple yes or no answers. Take an issue that I would support like the banning of ALL guns from society. Do we have a vote on the question: 'Should we ban all guns from private ownership?'. Well if we vote on that subject, how do we frame the law? We need to draw up the law with all the correct clauses, exceptions, definitions etc? Do we vote on them on an indivual basis? Good grief, do you not understand anything? You do not creat NEW legislation by petition. I suggest you study other nations that have this right.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jul 5, 2010 15:03:34 GMT
There is nothing democratic about having complex issues being boiled down to simple yes or no answers. Take an issue that I would support like the banning of ALL guns from society. Do we have a vote on the question: 'Should we ban all guns from private ownership?'. Well if we vote on that subject, how do we frame the law? We need to draw up the law with all the correct clauses, exceptions, definitions etc? Do we vote on them on an indivual basis? Good grief, do you not understand anything? You do not creat NEW legislation by petition. I suggest you study other nations that have this right. Italy requires half a million signatures to trigger a citizens referendum, and even then it can be rejected outright by the constitutional court (and frequently is) - there is no binding right for Italians to trigger a referendum. Even when a referendum has led to a law being repealed, the Italian Govt has frequently simply reintroduced the law. In New Zealand the trigger is 10% of the electorate, and the results of these referendums are non-binding on the Government. Only in Switzerland do referendums seem to have any kind of power, and the democratic traditions of federalism in that state are far more established than the UK's structures. Or am I missing something? Which nation is it that you are particularly holding up as the example we should follow?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 5, 2010 15:03:57 GMT
You do not creat NEW legislation by petition. No, but you do create a mandate for new legislation. You are proposing that the 'public' can trigger a referendum by collecting enough names. That means you can force a referendum on the 'death penalty' via a vote, for example. However, a move to restore the death penalty would require a whole raft of legislation, not least in having to revoke various treaties. Not only that but that new bill would have to go through a formal vote after the bill has travelled through the Commons. What if, MP forced various amendments that totally emasculated the bill? Do we vote on each amendment? Or merely the finished Bill?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 6, 2010 9:04:19 GMT
Good grief, do you not understand anything? You do not creat NEW legislation by petition. I suggest you study other nations that have this right. Italy requires half a million signatures to trigger a citizens referendum, and even then it can be rejected outright by the constitutional court (and frequently is) - there is no binding right for Italians to trigger a referendum. Even when a referendum has led to a law being repealed, the Italian Govt has frequently simply reintroduced the law. In New Zealand the trigger is 10% of the electorate, and the results of these referendums are non-binding on the Government. Only in Switzerland do referendums seem to have any kind of power, and the democratic traditions of federalism in that state are far more established than the UK's structures. Or am I missing something? Which nation is it that you are particularly holding up as the example we should follow? 500,000 signatures, work it out riott, that's 5% of 10,000,000. there are more than 10 million voters in Italy. You say you're happy with the joke of a constitution that you already have. 2004 "More than a million people have signed a petition calling for a referendum to abolish a new Italian law on assisted reproduction which will make it harder for infertile couples to obtain treatment. "It's a historic triumph," said Daniele Capezzone, secretary of the Radical party, who delivered the signed petition forms to the court of cassation." - The vote failed to reach the 50% turnout figure necessary for it to be valid. That will have RV quaking in his boots If a government decides to ignore the will of the people they can probably expect to be kicked out. The Swiss as we know voted to reject minarets
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 6, 2010 9:05:13 GMT
You do not creat NEW legislation by petition. No, but you do create a mandate for new legislation. You are proposing that the 'public' can trigger a referendum by collecting enough names. That means you can force a referendum on the 'death penalty' via a vote, for example. However, a move to restore the death penalty would require a whole raft of legislation, not least in having to revoke various treaties. Not only that but that new bill would have to go through a formal vote after the bill has travelled through the Commons. What if, MP forced various amendments that totally emasculated the bill? Do we vote on each amendment? Or merely the finished Bill? Obtuse to the nth degree, as ever. You do not create a mandate for new legislation by petition. You obviously did not do the research and you insist on making yourself look like a complete and total tit. But don't let me impede you in that mission
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 6, 2010 9:34:12 GMT
Obtuse to the nth degree, as ever. Obtuse? Go on then the floor is yours. When you get your five percent mandate and force a referendum on any subject, is the result binding on Parliament? If so, would that constitute a 'mandate'? Or will they have the power to completely ignore it? Surely if it is binding you are creating a mandate? But what if the bill put forward has so many get out clauses You haven't thought this through, have you? As usual another half arsed idea goes up in flames because you are unable to look at your own ideas. Think about it fretty and come back with something slightly better than 'you are anti democratic'
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 6, 2010 10:33:26 GMT
Obtuse to the nth degree, as ever. Obtuse? Go on then the floor is yours. When you get your five percent mandate and force a referendum on any subject, is the result binding on Parliament? If so, would that constitute a 'mandate'? Or will they have the power to completely ignore it? Surely if it is binding you are creating a mandate? But what if the bill put forward has so many get out clauses You haven't thought this through, have you? As usual another half arsed idea goes up in flames because you are unable to look at your own ideas. Think about it fretty and come back with something slightly better than 'you are anti democratic' If the majority of the people, i.e. >50% vote for something, RV that is, like it or not, a democratic decision. You do not agree with such a vote, ergo you are anti-democratic. Simple logic, old bean. But they will be voting to amend or remove EXISTING legislation - something you seem unable to grasp. Other countries do this, do you really suppose you are intellectually superior? I bet you do. Think about it, RV, you have a great deal to learn.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 6, 2010 10:50:01 GMT
But they will be voting to amend or remove EXISTING legislation - something you seem unable to grasp. . Not always though, fretty. Even if they are voting to remove existing legislation that is going to take someone to draw up the amendments and that is going to need to go through the existing procedures and scrutiny. Unless you draw the legislation up correctly, you are going to have pointless amendments to bills that do not serve the purpose they are intended. I look foward to this in a way, if in the extremely unlikely event of it ever taking place, because little of this will the intended effect.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jul 6, 2010 15:08:26 GMT
Italy requires half a million signatures to trigger a citizens referendum, and even then it can be rejected outright by the constitutional court (and frequently is) - there is no binding right for Italians to trigger a referendum. Even when a referendum has led to a law being repealed, the Italian Govt has frequently simply reintroduced the law. In New Zealand the trigger is 10% of the electorate, and the results of these referendums are non-binding on the Government. Only in Switzerland do referendums seem to have any kind of power, and the democratic traditions of federalism in that state are far more established than the UK's structures. Or am I missing something? Which nation is it that you are particularly holding up as the example we should follow? 500,000 signatures, work it out riott, that's 5% of 10,000,000. there are more than 10 million voters in Italy. You say you're happy with the joke of a constitution that you already have. 2004 "More than a million people have signed a petition calling for a referendum to abolish a new Italian law on assisted reproduction which will make it harder for infertile couples to obtain treatment. "It's a historic triumph," said Daniele Capezzone, secretary of the Radical party, who delivered the signed petition forms to the court of cassation." - The vote failed to reach the 50% turnout figure necessary for it to be valid. That will have RV quaking in his boots If a government decides to ignore the will of the people they can probably expect to be kicked out. The Swiss as we know voted to reject minarets Fret, what's your point? Your own example of an Italian referendum (which was not, of course, binding) suggests that the whole thing is a bit pointless. I don't have a problem with greater direct democracy, but there just isn't an example of it working internationally, except for Switzerland where the Govt. is far more defined by its subsidiarity than in the UK, so the referendum process sits far more easily on their system than it would being inserted into ours. I don't have a problem at all with referendums being used more frequently than they are currently in the UK, and in particular on issues of constitutionality which is where they sit best in our system. But I'm really not clear what you think the benefits of what you are proposing are. Or what model you are proposing. Yet you keep brushing myself and RV off with vague insults for questioning you about it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jul 6, 2010 15:26:13 GMT
Just being democratic isn't the ONLY criterion.
There's the question of 'the tyranny of the majority.'
For example, during the 1930s the Swiss voted in FAVOUR of anti-Jewish legislation by popular referendum.
The majority of Swiss were prepared to regard depriving Jews of their civil rights as exercising their democratic rights.
I am sure that there are LOTS of ideas - like, for instance, executing paedophiles - which if they were put to a referendum would stand a good chance of passing.
I'd still be appalled if that happened - and I SUPPORT capital punishment (though only for true murderers.)
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jul 6, 2010 21:01:05 GMT
I don't think that that necessarily follows. One could advocate democracy via elected representatives, and so if they, the reps, say nay to something, while a Gallup poll of the public says yay to that something, that person could endorse following the nay of the reps and the ignoring of the majority's yay, without contradiction.
|
|