Exactly.
Poll: Eu referendum prediction thread (poll please)
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Exactly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Yet he's voting, and can't tell me who SHOULD be voting on it.
Presumably no-one, so we're all stuck with his favoured status quo.
Not being able to vote on an issue as important as this would be completely undemocratic, given that it is no longer the common market we originally voted to join.
Preference - nobody votes
Reality - vote because it's even worse to not vote in something everyone else can vote in
Stop trying to turn it into some kind of class thing
shiver has explained it again. It's quite simple really.
My favoured position is irrelevant really since this is a view held by people on both sides of the argument.
The decision could be raised to the government and those who actually understand the situation properly from all angles make the decision about what is best for our country - after all, we elected them in democratically, right? It's their job to follow the will of the people and to fully understand these complex political and economic issues. It reduces the chance of something detrimental happening just because people have voted as a knee jerk over one particular issue, without the right information or because they don't understand all the implications. There's also the benefit of accountability with this. We don't have input into any other extremely complex political and economic issues as a general public and trust the elected government to work with the country's best interests at heart. Why should this be any different?
I agree - I've met a lot of folks who have done their own research and come to a reasoned conclusion based on proper information - whether they are contrary to my view or not, I have absolutely no problem with that - I can appreciate someone who takes the effort to form their own opinion and can see through the crap in the media. But I've met a lot more who quite simply haven't done anything and have no intention of doing anything - all they read is taken at face value with a big helping of confirmation bias. So it's inherently unreliable compared to the alternative of giving the responsibility to the elected - is that level of power too much? I don't know but it seems more logical to me.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,578
- Location
- Falling...
Hoping that 3 will occur.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
It reduces the chance of something detrimental happening
Lol!!! what you mean is 'Reduces the chances of me getting my own way' - No wonder you're an EU lover, you don't like democracy.
I disagree completely, I wouldn't trust politicians to get anything right, or do anything other what's best for them and what want the top 1% want, including big business and the financial institutions.
You might think it's too complicated, I don't.
If you don't think you can make an informed decision then you really shouldn't vote. So take your own advice and don't vote.
I do think I can make an informed decision, and I will vote.
No. I mean something detrimental to the country. A decision made with all the clear facts is less risky.
Again, both mine and your position in this discussion is irrelevant. We are discussing the delegation of power - not who is on what side here.
Are you actually able to have a proper discussion? Every post of yours is quite aggressive and personal.
Interesting that you want to give the UK politicians and government more power then, don't you think?
Good for you. However, I often find that the people who claim they understand everything are the ones who actually don't.
No, I don't think I can make a fully informed decision and that is why I am keeping the status quo - the inherently and quantifiably less risky option.
Good for you, our votes will cancel out
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
No. I mean something detrimental to the country.
Again, my and your position in this discussion is irrelevant. We are discussing the delegation of power - not who is on what side here.
Are you actually able to have a proper discussion? Every post of yours is quite aggressive and personal.
It's not irrelevant at all. I'm discussing delegation of power, delegation of power to the EU.
Are you able to have a discussion without abstracting it? when you say 'detrimental' you mean 'leave', don't pretend otherwise.
Interesting that you want to give the UK politicians and government more power then, don't you think?
Not really, as we can deselect them.
Good for you. However, I often find that the people who claim they understand everything are the ones who actually don't.
Thanks, why don't you go and inform yourself and then maybe you can be informed as well.
I often find that people who are scared of not getting what they want, want to remove the ability to make that choice from other people.
No, I don't think I can make a fully informed decision and that is why I am keeping the status quo - the inherently and quantifiably less risky option.
Good for you, our votes will cancel out
So you're making an uninformed vote then (I disagree that it's a quantifiably less risky option by the way), in direct contradiction of all your own self-serving waffle.
Again, my and your position in this discussion is irrelevant. We are discussing the delegation of power - not who is on what side here.
Are you actually able to have a proper discussion? Every post of yours is quite aggressive and personal.
It's not irrelevant at all. I'm discussing delegation of power, delegation of power to the EU.
Are you able to have a discussion without abstracting it? when you say 'detrimental' you mean 'leave', don't pretend otherwise.
Interesting that you want to give the UK politicians and government more power then, don't you think?
Not really, as we can deselect them.
Good for you. However, I often find that the people who claim they understand everything are the ones who actually don't.
Thanks, why don't you go and inform yourself and then maybe you can be informed as well.
I often find that people who are scared of not getting what they want, want to remove the ability to make that choice from other people.
No, I don't think I can make a fully informed decision and that is why I am keeping the status quo - the inherently and quantifiably less risky option.
Good for you, our votes will cancel out
So you're making an uninformed vote then (I disagree that it's a quantifiably less risky option by the way), in direct contradiction of all your own self-serving waffle.
Any chance you can use the Quote function? It's quite hard having to reformat everything to reply!
No, if I meant leave, I would have said leave. I want what is best for the country - just as you do. I believe the less risky and less detrimental option can be more reliably determined by people with the proper facts and figures, without media bias and with the full view of the bigger picture rather than the general population. Are you able to suggest why this might not be the case?
So equally so, you could 'deselect' a politician or government that you felt made the wrong decision in regard to membership of the EU?
What?
True but we aren't removing choice. We're placing trust in the government elected by the people? They make our choice by proxy just like with everything else politically and economically
As someone else mentioned, you wouldn't trust someone unqualified in a particular field to make decisions on important matters - why is this any different?
I absolute am making an uninformed vote. I am making no qualms about that fact. I would have preferred to not have to vote at all as I have previously explained but you still don't seem to be able to get the difference between the preferred situation and the reality.
No, if I meant leave, I would have said leave. I want what is best for the country - just as you do. I believe the less risky and less detrimental option can be more reliably determined by people with the proper facts and figures, without media bias and with the full view of the bigger picture rather than the general population. Are you able to suggest why this might not be the case?
So equally so, you could 'deselect' a politician or government that you felt made the wrong decision in regard to membership of the EU?
What?
True but we aren't removing choice. We're placing trust in the government elected by the people? They make our choice by proxy just like with everything else politically and economically
As someone else mentioned, you wouldn't trust someone unqualified in a particular field to make decisions on important matters - why is this any different?
So you're making an uninformed vote then (I disagree that it's a quantifiably less risky option by the way), in direct contradiction of all your own self-serving waffle.
I absolute am making an uninformed vote. I am making no qualms about that fact. I would have preferred to not have to vote at all as I have previously explained but you still don't seem to be able to get the difference between the preferred situation and the reality.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
I don't believe you. You can't think remaining is detrimental as you're voting that way.
Can't deselect the govt, when every major party wants to stay.
You said you were uninformed, so go and inform yourself.
You are removing choice, the choice to vote in the referendum.
I see the difference and I also see that you're a hypocrite.
Can't deselect the govt, when every major party wants to stay.
You said you were uninformed, so go and inform yourself.
You are removing choice, the choice to vote in the referendum.
I see the difference and I also see that you're a hypocrite.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
I agree, I think he has.
Thinks he shouldn't be allowed to vote, isn't forced to vote either - but he's voting anyway.
Top class hypocrisy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,636
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
He thinks the issue is too important to go to a vote, but seeing as the government has decided that it will be voted on, is going to execute his right to vote.
That's not hypocrisy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
I agree, he's wilfully ignorant and hypocritical.
Apparently we're informed enough to vote for a party who may wish to leave the EU or remain within it, but not informed enough to vote to leave the EU or to remain within it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,933
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Corbyn and Cameron, and the Scot should stand down if we see sense and leave. Pathetic. Corbyn is now saying the 225k immigrants who work in the NHS(EU members? More like India/Pakistan, for the real talent we want), will leave? How does he come to that conclusion? It's all about fear from all leaders except Farage, who does actually give facts which you should fear.
I agree, he's wilfully ignorant and hypocritical.
Apparently we're informed enough to vote for a party who may wish to leave the EU or remain within it, but not informed enough to vote to leave the EU or to remain within it.
You're doing "I know you are but what am I" and expecting to be taken seriously.
If you're struggling to see how electing a party on a broad set of issues isn't different to single-issue direct democracy then there's no point in carrying on with this.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 191
- Location
- Southampton UK
The debates and discussion I have had with people over this have convinced me that Referendums are a bad idea. The wider public have neither the training nor time to properly assess the issues and make a genuinely informed choice. Thats in fact why we have a representative democracy not a direct one. You vote for a representative to undertake these decisions based on their knowledge and experience and having the time to consider the issues. Admittedly that depends on your representative (my MP is a completely useless Tory ******** who has managed to put in all of 2 questions to Government since he got elected in 2015, he is barely more active than a Sinn Fein MP who are abstentionists).
If you don't like the choices your representative makes you vote for a different one its not a perfect system but its used by most countries as the least worse option.
If you don't like the choices your representative makes you vote for a different one its not a perfect system but its used by most countries as the least worse option.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
But he's says he's not informed enough to vote and therefore shouldn't be allowed to, and no-one is forcing him, so he's free not to vote, which is what he wants. Truth is, he's scared of losing.
Apparently we're informed enough to vote in Gen Elec's on matters of the EU, but not informed enough to vote in an in/out ref.
Hilarious.