EU withdrawal referendum

[sifi]

Whips are utterly contradictory to democracy. The party system should be disbanded, in my opinion, and politicians should represent the interests of the people, and not the interests of business which funds their party machines. This is why electoral dicatorship that we have - the party is in power is essentially in full control for the period of their term of office - is subverted away from people towrards the establishment. If it was a democracy, our representatives would be able to vote how they like, and if an idea - such as whether or not we have a referendum on EU membership - was one that had support it would go through, and if it didn't it wouldn't go through.

That would be democracy, and not this face we have at the moment.

[fred quimby]

Whips are utterly contradictory to democracy. The party system should be disbanded, in my opinion, and politicians should represent the interests of the people, and not the interests of business which funds their party machines. This is why electoral dicatorship that we have - the party is in power is essentially in full control for the period of their term of office - is subverted away from people towrards the establishment. If it was a democracy, our representatives would be able to vote how they like, and if an idea - such as whether or not we have a referendum on EU membership - was one that had support it would go through, and if it didn't it wouldn't go through.

That would be democracy, and not this face we have at the moment.

[kaosmark2]

sadly I could never see it working. How would we get create new bills, or would each individual bring forward something they wanted passed and then the vote on that and so forth, couldn't see anything ever really being done. Plus I can't see business not funding individuals anyway. I guess all those individuals would gravitate towards others with similar views and then before you know it we would be in the same position. I don't see the system in itself as flawed, but I do see people as flawed and hence no syustem will work properly.

[eFestivals]

politicians should represent the interests of the people

A fine idea in principle, but one that wouldn't really work in reality. In general, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

For example, in yesterday's debate Dave Moron used a-neighbour's-house-on-fire analogy, saying something like "you help your neighbour fight the flames, not least to help stop them from spreading to your house" - a very fine assessment of the situation as it is right now.

And yet he could have gone further, and added something related to his own "I want to renegotiate our relationship with Europe" view (and even more applicable for the 'get pout of the EU altogether' brigade) ... and that's the analogy about setting your own house on fire.

There's a lot that's wrong about the EU, but there's an awful lot that's good too. If nothing else, it means that the more ridiculous but fairly standard jingoistic drivellings of the UK's Euro-skeptics are only ever wasteful hot air and not the prelude to the next war.

But that aside, you don't need to be a genius to see what's really driving most of their comments - and that's a desire to remove from ordinary people the social and working rights that we've fought so hard to get from the bosses that would exploit us much more if given half the chance ... and with the half-chance of a referendum you can already see the tory eyes glazing over at the increased profits they and their chums would make at our expense.

If we had a referendum and the antis won, not long after we exited the EU joe public would be moaning far more about increased working hours, reduced pensions and holidays, and all the other things we'd lose. The majority of people who voted to exit the EU would not see such things as a fair exchange.

To quote the slogan from the 70's referendum: "to stay in work we must stay in Europe". It's no less true now than it was then.

[fred quimby]

It'd still be better than having people who's official job is to bribe, blackmail, bully and generally coerce other to voting in line. It'd be a lot better if MPs were actually allowed to vote as they believed, on the merit of the legislation, as opposed to how their bosses have told them to.

[kaosmark2]

There's a lot that's wrong about the EU, but there's an awful lot that's good too. If nothing else, it means that the more ridiculous but fairly standard jingoistic drivellings of the UK's Euro-skeptics are only ever wasteful hot air and not the prelude to the next war.

But that aside, you don't need to be a genius to see what's really driving most of their comments - and that's a desire to remove from ordinary people the social and working rights that we've fought so hard to get from the bosses that would exploit us much more if given half the chance ... and with the half-chance of a referendum you can already see the tory eyes glazing over at the increased profits they and their chums would make at our expense.

If we had a referendum and the antis won, not long after we exited the EU joe public would be moaning far more about increased working hours, reduced pensions and holidays, and all the other things we'd lose. The majority of people who voted to exit the EU would not see such things as a fair exchange.

To quote the slogan from the 70's referendum: "to stay in work we must stay in Europe". It's no less true now than it was then.

[kaosmark2]

In theory they can. And shouldn't they be voting on not what they believe but what the people ther represent believe, and isn't that down to what they got voted in for.?

[fred quimby]

They should vote for what they believe, and they should get elected to represent those beliefs. It'd be stupid for MPs to have to vote on something they disagree with but their constituents think. I have more respect for those with integrity that I disagree with than those that vote as I'd like but have no spine.

[Kowalski]

They should vote for what they believe, and they should get elected to represent those beliefs. It'd be stupid for MPs to have to vote on something they disagree with but their constituents think. I have more respect for those with integrity that I disagree with than those that vote as I'd like but have no spine.

[grumpyhack]

I work in adult and community ed and a large number of courses and training programmes only happen because of European funding. There's something called subsidiarity, which means that the European money is supposed to be on top of our government's spend, but actually it's become instead of. Lose European funding and we'll lose a lot of valuable opportunities that this government, and previous governments, have got out of the habit of paying for.

[eFestivals]

Seen today's papers?

What's really meant by the "we want to leave/change the EU" mentality of tories is made abundantly clearly. They want the right to be able to sack workers with no comeback and no appeal.

The people who might vote to leave or change would be voting themselves &/or their families out of their job.

What's that? It'll only be the slackers and shirkers who'd lose out? Yeah, right. .... after all, if it's fair competition that the tories want they wouldn't be running scared from the even playing field of the EU in the first place.

[kaosmark2]

Maybe...

But at the same time it would save us the £9 billion we spend on being members... So in theory that money could be used on things like this directly.. and if it was used directly there would be more money there (in theory) because it wouldn't of gone through the costly euro system to come back to us...

Lots of ifs and buts though...