The referendum ploy; Can Cameron make it work three times?

The referendum ploy works like this;
An agitated party agitates for a particular measure, claiming it to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Cameron allows a referendum on the matter.
The referendum shows that the voters in general don't want it.
Collapse of agitated party.
Cameron has called their bluff.

1) Proportional representation
The LibDems and their predecessors have been campaigning for this for years.
Cameron wooed them into the Coalition, not by promising an Act, but by promising a referendum.
Who wanted it? Proportional representation was invented by professional politicians to meet the needs of professional politicians. Nobody else was interested.
The result; The vote said "No".

2) Scottish independence
This one happened because Salmond was going to hold one anyway.
Who wanted it? The vote seems to show that the interest was concentrated in the urban areas.
Also I saw an interesting poll during the campaign, which analysed responses by age-group. Apparently the demand for independence was coming not from the oldest group of voters, NOR from the younger groups, but from the middle group. To me, this suggests "those who learned their politics in reaction against Maggie".
The result; the vote said "No".

3) Leaving the European Union
A reluctant promise to hold such a referendum was extracted from Cameron by his own party.
Who wants it? When I was younger, the resistance to the Common Market was coming from the Socialists. It was supposed to be a "capitalist conspiracy". However, now that the men in Brussels have revealed themselves to be control freaks, intent on micro-managing people's lives in the interests of the state, the Socialists can see where they're coming from. The demand for breaking off contact is coming from more Conservative circles.

So Cameron is "on a hat-trick", as they say.
Can he do it three times running?
Would a third referendum be a third success in calling the bluff of the agitators?

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect that it probably would.
If it came to the crunch, the argument that "Leaving would be an economic disaster" would probably be convincing enough to win a majority of the vote.
What do other people think?

(P.S. This is not about what you think should happen. It is about what you think would happen. Not the same thing at all.)

a reply to: DISRAELI

Have you seen the recent Daily Mail as of TODAY?

Now Cameron poses the ENGLISH question: As Scotland rejects independence, PM threatens to tear up the constitution by declaring it is now time for 'English votes for English laws'

a reply to: Jesuslives4u
And what do you think would happen in a referendum on leaving the European Union?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think it is the begining of the end for the EU. I believe the EU will soon fall apart as predicted.

EDIT LATER: My reason for keeping my answer short is because I have read your posts and you understand Daniel chapter 11.

a reply to: Jesuslives4u
So you see a "Yes" vote in such a referendum?
I don't know. If that were likely, then UKIP would be less of a fringe now. They failed to win Newark. for example. I happened to be in the town a couple of days before the vote, and could hear them not having much success with passers-by.
We'll have to see how the polls develop.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Jesuslives4u
So you see a "Yes" vote in such a referendum?
I don't know. If that were likely, then UKIP would be less of a fringe now. They failed to win Newark. for example. I happened to be in the town a couple of days before the vote, and could hear them not having much success with passers-by.
We'll have to see how the polls develop.

In this instance.......I think Cameron is protected and he will get what he wants..... not that I agree.

A couple of small points.

The fact that the David Cameron and the Conservative / Liberal Democrat Coalition have held two referendums shows that democracy is at work. Clearly, both issues - Scottish independence and electoral reform would not go away, so best to tackle them.

As for Europe. This is a problem the Conservatives have had for decades, but also a wider issue in the UK with a high degree of mistrust. It is a problem that won't go away, so a referendum is a tool to put the matter to rest. Interestingly, although the polls seem to suggest a referendum would result in the UK leaving the EU, I am not sure it would happen that way. The level of debate in the Scottish referendum has shown that preconceived views can be swayed and if push came to shove, I think it would be a "no" vote if accompanied by change in the EU.

Maybe Cameron should be congratulated for moving democracy forward. When was the last time Labour initiated a referendum?

Regards

a reply to: paraphi
Yes, I'm inclined to agree. There would probably be enough room for "second thoughts" to achieve the same result as this time.
The only Labour referendum that I recall was when Harold Wilson "re-negotiated" the terms of our membership of the Common Market.
He allowed his Cabinet to choose their own sides, but obviously put his own effort behind "Yes".
I suspect that Cameron still has some way to go to match the record of De Gaulle, who made them a frequent political tool, but resigned after a bad result on his last one.

P.S. By one of the ironies of history, Wilson allowed a referendum on Europe for the same reason that Cameron promised one, that is the anti-European wing of his own party.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Although it galls me to say it, I think you're right. (That's about Cameron, not you, obviously).

If it came to the crunch, the argument that "Leaving would be an economic disaster" would probably be convincing enough to win a majority of the vote. What do other people think?

We've just seen that happen - that was basically the whole (wrong, wrong and more wrong) premise of the No camp - and it worked. It's an easy fear to play on and the demographic results back it up.

Apparently the demand for independence was coming not from the oldest group of voters, NOR from the younger groups, but from the middle group. To me, this suggests "those who learned their politics in reaction against Maggie".

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it like that but it's true. I grew up with Maggie, I'm in my late thirties now. I thought of it differently, in that those of us who are working and have a long way to go before our pensions know how hard it is to make ends meet just now. We know that we can, and will, make sacrifices for a better future because it's not going to get better on its own. The older generation and the younger ones (college, uni, starting careers) have to trust us that we will work hard for them -pay taxes -to support them. That's a lot of trust, and they didn't trust us.

I also think that there is no way a referendum on Europe will ignite the same passions in people as the Indy ref, so voter turnout will be much, much lower. So will he get what he wants? Probably. (The git).

originally posted by: beansidhe
We've just seen that happen - that was basically the whole (wrong, wrong and more wrong) premise of the No camp - and it worked.

It worked because it was right. Scotland would have had really serious economic problems had they voted "yes".

Regards

a reply to: beansidhe
I'm thinking over your point about lower turn-out, and I think you may be right.
Control by Europe is very much in the background, and we've never fought any wars against "Europe" as such.
So I can see the "come out" argument not being able to appeal to the passions, which would lower their impact and reduce the voting strength.
Now if "Europe" were more distinctly either "France" or "Germany", that would be different.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: beansidhe
We've just seen that happen - that was basically the whole (wrong, wrong and more wrong) premise of the No camp - and it worked.

It worked because it was right. Scotland would have had really serious economic problems had they voted "yes".

Regards

Och paraphi, we'll never agree on this, I can tell. What happened, happened and I don't want to turn Disraeli's thread into another Indy ref debate - there's plenty already. Let's just agree to disagree on that point.

B x

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, that would give voters an identity to rally against or run towards. There is an alienating quality about 'Europe' when the word is used in a political sense. It doesn't mean much to most folk, and it's hard to get a proper boundary around it, if you know what I mean. It's nebulous and vast.

If Germany, for example, were pushed forward then passions could easily be ignited - just as an example.
Although, lower voting numbers and apathy could be a good thing for Cameron in that only those who agree with him will turn out to support him. My money is on hat-trick!

This becomes relevant again, because Cameron has just announced his intention to offer "a straight in-or-out" referendum on the EU.
He's knows what he is doing, because "straight in-or-out" is EXACTLY the kind of vote that the advocates of "Out" are least likely to win. They would stand a better chance if "out" was more qualified.
So I still think that the trick is likely to work a third time.

a reply to: DISRAELI
The terms of the referendum question have now been revealed;
"Yes", if you want to stay in the EU, "No" if you want to leave.
Already Farage and others are arguing that Cameron achieves an unfair advantage by putting "Yes" and "No" that way round.
I think this is a red herring.
I've always been convinced that the straight decision between "Staying" and "Leaving", which was advertised well in advance, is enough in itself to load the dice in favour of staying.

The reason is that this definition of the question drags the compromisers over to his side of the vote.
The compromisers are those who would say "I would be willing to stay, if the conditions were changed".
If the question was "Shall we keep the relationship exactly as it is, Yes or No?", they would vote No.
But if the only alternative is the blunt and uncompromising option of outright departure, they are more likely to vote to stay.
Especially when, once again, the economic arguments are publicised.
Only the extreme minority would be likely to vote "No", under that definition of the question.

So I am still inclined to think that Cameron is going to pull it off for a third time.

This becomes relevant again now that a date has been announced.
This thread, incidentally, is entirely about speculating what will happen (so it's not competing with other discussions about what ought to happen).

I sadly think the majority of people will fall for the relentless scare-mongering from project fear and will vote to Remain in the EU. This will paint David Cameron as one of the most successful prime ministers in history, though in reality he has caused major destruction to our country.

I also believe this will make more people vote for UKIP in all future elections, as they are the only real party that are united in wanting to leave the EU, and passionate anti-EU voters will think that is their only chance they have to get another referendum.

a reply to: 83Liberty
Thank you for that vote.
I'm beginning to think that the race will be closer than I first imagined, since the EU has lost so much ground in the prestige stakes lately.
There is still a good chance that he will pull it back, but it may need a desperate push at the last minute.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

The terms of the referendum question have now been revealed;
"Yes", if you want to stay in the EU, "No" if you want to leave.

It's a very subtle difference ...

The YES and NO answer is loaded to getting the result he wants.

A simple IN or OUT would be better. and fairer.

a reply to: eletheia
Yes, indeed.
He got criticised for allowing the question in the Scottish referendum to be the other way round, so that leaving was given as the more "positive" Yes option. I don't quite see why it would matter, logically, but people set great store by it.

I think, though, "Yes" or "No" is probably the normal way of phrasing referenda questions.