Printable View
No referendum Ra, I think this was intended to show something built on a lie. In this case that there was rock solid proof that Iraq had WMD when they didn't. Also the reason why I mentioned Tonkin, that took the US into the Vietnam war on an attack on a US warship that never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Which bit of ‘the lies (aka misinformation) told by both sides’ passed you by? Still, thanks for agreeing...as far as politics is concerned that must be a first.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ram59
I suspect we agree MA, that politics in general seems to be built on lies...the subject that today’s politicians seem to excel at...so where’s that party you’re forming?
My point was that where the specifics of referenda are concerned there should be an opportunity for the electorate to be presented with a set of facts rather than the vagaries of Party politics.
Im struggling to understand why it being a referendum makes it any different to run of the mill routine lying and disinformation. We've only ever had three referenda that I can think of - two on the same subject - and one of those, the 2011 one, was a forgone conclusion as the question was akin to asking turkeys to vote for christmas.
I think with any ‘single issue’ question, which all referenda are, then it should be possible to provide information which can be viewed more objectively by the population as a whole.
With General Elections each party’s manifesto consists of their aims and objectives in the forthcoming parliament which all but the governing party are promising ‘blind’ in so much as they do not necessarily have access to the nation’s ‘books’.
General Elections tend to be governed by political philosophy rather than objectivity.
With referenda, whether that be over something as relatively straightforward as fox hunting/blood sports or as complex as Brexit, the questions are specific and it shouldn’t be beyond the bounds of reason for people to be presented with the salient facts and for them to then vote accordingly.
Having said that, I still believe the Brexit issue was too complex to be addressed via referendum but that if we have to have the damned things they should be compulsory with a possible ‘don’t care/understand/feel competent to vote’ option and the necessity for a 51% majority. Only then can anyone refer to the outcome of a referendum as anything approaching the ‘will of the people’.
Currrently in talks with the new kids on the block here in Holland. Last General Election was the first they took part in. Just the 2 seats won in a 150 seat Parliament. The latest opinion polls puts them as the 2nd or 3rd largest party in the country. Don't agree with all of their policies but I do agree with most.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Don't forget 'too entrenched/bigotted to change no matter what is said'. A significant minority I'd wagerQuote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
I've said before a more fact-based lead-up to the vote would have helped, and IMO would have swung the vote to remain, but back on the subject of media influence, I think another significant minority may have been influenced, and not in the way hoped for, by being 'lectured'/talked down to by mainstream media, especially TV and radio news/current affairs programmes. It still goes on.
How could you be presented with a set of facts regarding brexit? Even now nearly 2 years later, we don't know how it will definetly pan out. The leavers had to make assumptions how they thought it would be and make a decision on that. Even the remainers could not know how the future of the EU will proceed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
That’s the problem Ram...we’ve all got so used to being lied to we’ve come to expect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram59
Somewhere along the line there must be some figures that tell us such things as...
a) How much we ‘give’ to the EU each year.
b) How much we ‘receive’ from the EU each year.
c) What the majority of the money we receive is spent on?
d) How much we will have to find to compensate for any possible shortfall?
e) How much it will actually cost us to leave?
f) How many of our laws are actually made by the EU?
The list goes on and on but surely these facts exist - they do in any other business - and wouldn’t the referendum have made more sense if we had been given such figures and facts rather than a decision being made on the basis of guesstimates and prejudice?
I'm just playing, but how do you decide on the questions, without bias?
a) How much we will ‘give’ to the EU each year going forward.
b) How much / little we will ‘receive’ from the EU each year going forwards, in proportion to the rest.
c) What the majority of the money we receive is spent on / how much choice we have in what it's spent on, and how much going forward?
d) Future budget plans?
e) How much will we settle to leave?
f) When will our law be completely decided by the EU?
Radio 4's More Or Less programme provided most of that info, the accuracy of which appears to stand up to subsequent scrutiny, in two one hour programmes just before the vote. Of especial enlightenment was their deconstructing of the £350m, notably not to zero but to a number about half the number slapped on the bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
NB to clarify, in my love/hate relationship with the BBC, More Or Less is very much on the love side.