Referendum UK

[Paul22118]

I just wonder what the result of a national referendum would be if the following questions were asked of us and the parliamentarians agreed to follow our wishes.

1. Shall we re-introduce capital punishment for murder.

2. Shall we adopt the Euro.

3. Shall we leave the EU.

4. Should the UK have seriously stringent immigration laws, and I mean keep this country very very tight.

5. Should we have a major review of all benefits and then absolutely ensure their enforcement. i.e. root out all the spongers.

What do you think.

[4GS]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes

4. No

5. Yes

[mrs_overall]

1. no
2. no
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes

And what are the chances of us ever being allowed a referendum on anything?

watches another pig flying past the window

[Tichfield]

I think there are lots of questions that could be asked - but none of them will be asked because that is not the way we do things here.

Nor would I want them asked, because the level of intelligence, and relevant knowledge, of lots of people who have the vote is not great enough to get a sensible decision from them.

[funnygirl]

Well we can dream can't we!!!

1 - Yes
2 - No
3 - Yes
4- Yes
5 - Yes, definitely.

[RevFunk]

y
n
y
y
y

[Catron]

What a daft question. You wonder, do you? Well, even with those who have given answers to your deliberately subjective questions, you will still be wondering!

[terambulan]

1. y
2. n
3. y
4. y & n - let them all in on condition its reciprocal and we can live in their countries.
5. y

[~spaced~]

its easy to make such a unintelligent response catron, why dont you explain the rationale behind your repsonse.

In the meatime

1. Yes absolutely
2. Definately Not
3. No
4. Yes please, it would be nice
5. Definately

[jake-the-peg]

I wonder what the result would be if there were a referendum to

a/ Abolish taxation

b/ Supply free drinks to everyone on Saturday night

Politicians are not just there to answer to governing by the wishes of the people but to ensure that the decisions made are properly thought out and all the consequences considered.

I guess you think the country is badly Governed - imagine a country where everything was determined by a referendum

Everyone has a vote - nobody has responsibility

In 6 months there'd be a revolution

[whiffey]

I am undecided about capital punishment, read for example about the hanging of Edith Thompson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Thompson

I have read the first-hand account by her executioner, John Ellis, it is harrowing in the extreme and haunted him until his eventual suicide.

(not that it matters, it's never coming back)

[Catron]

Unintelligent ~spaced~ ? If you are not intelligent enough to understand, I do not think my explaining the obvious to you will make any difference.

However, Tichfield and Jake must surely have given you a clue as to why this question is so daft?

[Sasha13]

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Tighter controls than present and stop the ridiculous pandering to minority cultures which goes against british law/culture.
5. Yes

[~spaced~]

so your response was not unintelligent catron? Anyone can make an assumption and cast a point of view, without a valid rationale its worthless.

I do understand how you think this questions may be daft, but paul just asks a simple question which we are all free to answer without having to go through the ins and outs of subjectiveness et all. This is hardly the Commons.

But what strikes me as strange is, why bother reponding if you think the question is daft, just to make a comment which you have yet to back up? Well? Is it to make yourself feel or look better?

[Catron]

This is chatterbank, ~spaced~, where anybody and everybody can give their views and opinions and I am as entitled to call this question daft as you are to respond to it!

The questioner has asked subjective questions ie imaginary questions (because they will never be asked in a referendum, as you know full well) - why do I need to explain the rationale behind my response when it is self explanatory? To call me unintelligent just because you do not understand my response is very puerile.

Of course you are free to answer but do not try and kid yourself that Paul will be any wiser for your having done so.

[Paul22118]

Thank you all for responding inyour various ways, but especial thanks to Jake for understanding what I was alluding to.
Catron, I suspect you don't really think the question was posed as it is read, although your response is somewhat off the wall.

What I understand is that we elect individuals to represent our views in parliament. They cannot and do not always represent theviews of us all or indeed all the views of the few. It is far from being a satisfactory system but it the best there is in this world.

Finally I do see evidence of politicians leaning towrds the mass views such as tightening up on benefit cheats.
Discuss.

[Catron]

Oh I understand perfectly and suggest it is your original question that is off the wall. You asked a question as to what the results of a national referendum would be if your questions were asked of the electorate. Your questions have been picked purely on subjects that matter to you and you have put them in a way that could not even be put in a referendum.

By all means ask those questions but do not kid yourself that the results here would be in any way indicative of what the results would be in a referendum, especially with the clearly biased way you have put some of them.

If you wanted a discussion on whether the Government should take notice of what you perceive as the moral majority, why did you not simply ask that rather than have people guess the meaning behind your question? The very fact that it is only Jake that has received three stars from you is proof enough of what I said in my first post - what a daft question.