posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 03:14 PM
The problem with continual referendums on specific issues, UK Wizard, is that they require the voting public to be properly informed on those specific
issues in order to exercise a real and genuine choice.
Any idiot can go ee-nee, mee-nee, miinee-mo.
What lunatic wants to run a country like that?
*Cue shorty with excellent timing.*
(.....and don't worry if you were just making a rhetorical quip shorty, this illustrates my point perfectly anyway)
As shorty points out, he/she can see there is - obviously - an EU in existance and that it has 25 western developed member countries now.....
.....yet he/she cannot think of a single reason why the UK should belong to it!
.....and he/she thinks (when old enough, if not now) they're capable of making a proper decision on the matter!
Now, whether one actually does or does not agree with the UK's EU membership is another matter
to honestly admit that one is so either blinkered or poorly informed on the issue as to be incapable of understanding how come we are in it - at all -
, yet wish to exercise a say in the matter, well God help us all if that is the level of 'democracy' we end up reaching!
This is, in a nutshell, the problem with rule by referendum.
We could end up weighing up the most vital, grave and weighty matters of state on the basis of a campaign in 'The Sun' (or whichever
tabloid)......and if there has been a large scale anti-EU campaign for 15yrs + (as there has been in the UK to date) how 'correct, balanced, informed
and reasonable' do you imagine the result might be?
How could you be sure in those circumstances you weren't being unwittingly led to protect or promote interests other than your own or your
Do you really think Rupert Murdock's interests are the same as yours....or ours, or the whole UK's?
How sure could you be you were deciding on the basis of all the facts?
What about a 'loaded' referendum question? What about repeated referenda?
(Ireland voted on the EU's 'Nice treaty' twice, saying no the 1st time and yes the 2nd. There were slight changes between the 1st and 2nd but is
going to the people until you get the answer you want - whatever that may be - ok and 'better'?)
Personally I don't really like the idea but I suppose if we have to have them then they should be after an extensive 'campaign' with a reasonable
and proper length of time where the opportunity is genuinely available to thrash out all sides of the debate.
[edit on 29-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]