A petition is underway

It's only just over 40000 now so no need to worry.

 

Again, to play devil's advocate :

If your criteria for a referendum is 'something that effects our whole way of life' where do you draw the line with that? One example out of many I could think of, Interest rate decision impact the entire economic system - they impact the cost of your borrowing, the amount of investment and the flow of money coming in and out of the country. Should we be asked about the level at which to set interest rates?

If not, why not?

 

That's a bad example. Even the government don't make the decision on the base rate.

 

Exactly and that's why I'm abstaining

 

I'm not worried at all...on the contrary ... its the remain vote that looks worried, wanting to move the goal posts. I will vote out, but willxcept the result of a fare and democratic vote on Thursday either way..

Oh and thank you for the slightly patronising reply..

 

I disagree.

We elected a government who devolved power on the interest rate to the Bank of England, so in effect it is ultimately q decision for the government. They could revert that power.

However more fundamentally , it's still a decision which impacts every single person's everyday life over which you have no direct control. Do you not care about that? In some regards isn't it worse? A body which you can't even directly elect is taking decisions which impact you, and everyone else.

Is it that we the people should have direct control over all decisions that impact us, just some, or none at all and just rely o the democratic system we have. If just some, I can't think of a good criteria for working out what the just some is.

 

It wasn't intended to be patronising but on reading it back it does read like that, apologies.

I obviously realise that this is a massive decision for the country and all of us, but I just don't have enough information to make my decision, as I don't believe half the things I read about it, on both sides. I genuinely don't know what to do.

 

Exactly the same arguments I'm sure were advanced by the superior classes pre 1918 to argue against women voting....it's incredible to find someone prepared to argue against universal suffrage in 2016.

 

But it isn't the same is it. There has been a vote. A vote to elect people who are paid good money to study the facts and make informed decisions on our behalf.

What is actually happening is we elected these people to make these decisions and they've turned round and said may, **** that, I'll take the money but if you could do my job for me without the facts that would be nice.

It's like electing to go to a particular Chinese takeaway on a Friday night because you trust them to make a good Chinese only to get there and be told 'the wok's in the back mate, crack on and make it yourself'

 

In general referendums are for constitutional issues (EEC/Scotland/AV voting). For some US states they are also a way of deciding on policy (ie Oregon). Nothing unusual in European terms in having a referendum: for constitutional changes France, Holland and Ireland all must have them. You could argue that the UK vote is not triggered by a specific constitutional question, which is true. But my own view for what it's worth is that it's time the question was asked. Too many Government's have ducked asking the people whether they agree with the course the EU has taken. Whether you are for leave and remain we all surely agree it's a massively different organisation to the one we joined. And one that has a far greater affect on the daily lives of UK people.

 

Yes and no.

I agree with you that referendums may work for constitutional issues, and I also agree that there's not one here.

I don't agree with the argument that there's been absolutely no consultation or agreement with the course the EU has taken over the years. I've just looked back at Labour's 2001 manifesto - it's fairly explicit both in terms of building the relationship with Europe, and explicitly over support for the accession of new member states. I'd encourage people to have a look.

Labour won with a majority of 166 and therefore with a strong mandate to implement their manifesto.

I appreciate that this isn't an explicit endorsement of our path on the EU - but there's no way of getting around the fact that it was made fairly clear, and it was voted on. If there was a legitimate democratic concern over that path, at that point why wasn't there more popular sentiment for an alternative option?

 

Like you a devil's advocate position....

I would think though (admittedly without checking)...the Labour commitment will read very similar to the Tory position ...it's highly unlikely many people voted for Labour because of the stuff in the small print...especially when the Tory small print is virtually indistinguishable.
If that is the case it's not a ringing endorsement that a debate on Europe really took place that influenced the election result .
Personally I think people voted to punish the Tories for other issues .....but obviously it's only an opinion.

 

Sorry double post.

 

It is devil's advocate - regardless of whether I'm on the side of the devil or not ;-)

It's hardly the small print though . It's the manifesto - it's a 40 odd page document that's meant to shape 5 years of government. If people can't be bothered to read through it at election time and understand the implications of the decisions they are taking then how can they be trusted to take one of the most complex decisions of our time. Especially when there's lots of evidence that people's perceptions of our relationship with the EU are a long way from the actual reality.

I agree that it's not an explicit endorsement of the EU position - but either a) people valued punishing the tories as more important than the fundamental question of our relationship with Europe or b) they didn't engage with the decision. If people couldn't engage with evidence in a sensible way to express their EU preferences then, why would they be able to now?

At the end of the day - anyone who put an x in the box against Labour in 01 cannot say they have not been consulted about the direction the EU has taken over the past 10 years.

 

The only reason we are having a referendum is that Cameron wanted to avoid the Conservative party splitting over Europe, hence he introduced in 2012 the idea of a referendum on Europe. He thought it would stop the likes of Farage causing problems within the Conservative party. It clearly didn't work but now we have all the division and uncertainty throughout the country which Cameron's tactics have brought about. It was a shameful decision putting party over the country's interest. The Conservative party's problems won't be resolved by this and there's a high likelihood the U.K. will be a lot worse off economically if the vote turns out to be "Leave". So everyone could end up paying for Cameron's failing attempt to hold his party together.

 

And don't forget that Scotland will vote remain. I imagine that there'll be a really strong mandate for another referendum on independence if we leave. This will be something fundamentally different to what Scotland signed up to when they voted to stay in UK last year. Not saying this will happen - but it's certainly plausible.

So in the course of little over 6 years it's plausible we could go from Britain in Europe to breaking the union and being outside of the EU. Whichever way people look at it Cameron could be responsible for some of the most fundamental changes this nation has seen, especially in recent history.

 

Except, I am arguing the exact opposite, that everyone gets a vote for their MPs and they vote to make our laws.
That's democracy. We are having a referendum to try and stop the Tory party from falling apart. That's worked well then!
Its already cost us billions in terms of damage to the economy.

We elect MPs to make our laws as specialists, people with time to find out and review the facts. In the same we you ask an expert plumber to fix your pipes or a doctor to take out your appendix.

Its not smart to ask the general public to take your appendix out. Neither is that how democracy works.

 

Trust in the people. They usually come up with the right answer collectively and eventually.

 

I disagree with this completely. Yes, it us due to Farage, but it is to with the people of the country. The reason we are having this referendum is because, after years of people's views over the EU being sidelined, UKIP was gaining traction on an ever increasing basis because people were feeling in increasing numbers that the main parties were not listening to them, so they voted for a party that shared their concerns. We are having a referendum because Cameron decided that he needed to in order the shoot the UKIP fox and stop the party dribbling support to UKIP. It showed that such a vote was ultimately going to be necessary in this country because people demanded it. Ultimately, if people are ignored then they slide towards the extremes to make themselves heard.

 

You're fully entitled to your opinion. However UKIP would never have been able to force a referendum until it could influence a government. The last election made sure it couldn't do that because it has one M.P. The labour party didn't offer a referendum. The Lib Dems didn't either. There was no need for a referendum. The referendum was Cameron's attempt to control his own party. He's clearly failed in that as Johnson, Gove etc are positioning themselves to succeed him.