In the video above, I talk about the possibility of a nationwide referendum on net zero - as in, a referendum to decide whether net zero should be the goal of any British government or not going forward.
So why is everyone saying that we'd need another ref to approe rejoining the EU, or at least the SM and CU? There's no constitutional rule saying that. And neither, btw, is there any constitutional bar to another Scottish Indy ref "within a generation". NT forgets that here in Scotland there have actually been three refs, and if the 2014 Indy ref had been after the 2016 Brexit ref rather than before it, I bet that "yes" would have won. It was worry about being outwith the EU which swung it for "No", and look how that turned out.
In some ways the AV referendum did more damage. The Tories represent it as a referendum on PR. The LibDems never said this. As I understand it AV was the only alternative on offer for the vote. PR was not offered by Cameron. When I lobbied him, my Tory MP actually claimed the LibDems wanted AV as their PR alternative.
The EU referendum was at least a clear choice. It deserved a referendum as it was a constitutional change. However as such it should have required a supermajority to pass. Not 50%+1. Making it consultative and then calling the result "the will of the people" tore representative democracy apart.
I think there are two circumstances in which referenda make sense.
The first is where everyone knows in advance that the outcome will be overwhelming support for one position. The point wouldn't be to make a decision, but to draw a line - to be a way for society to say 'we've changed'. e.g. a referendum to mark the end of Apartheid in South Africa asking 'do we want to be a multi-ethnic democracy?'. You wouldn't want to hold such a referendum though if the answer was in any doubt, or even if the losing side was going to be anything but a small minority.
The other is where you're really asking a fairly open question and are clear in advance that the referendum is a starting point for elected politicians. So you might ask "Should parliament try to resolve the social care crisis, even if that means a rise in general taxation?" It wouldn't attempt to get a detailed answer, but just to kick off the work of MPs.
You probably don't NEED referenda to achieve either outcome above, but those are the circumstances in which I think it might make sense to have one.
I love this, the Leave vote imposed on MPs something they didn't want to do.
That must be why when voters continually vote in GEs for parties that promise to control and lower migration (Tories and Labour since the days of Major and Blair), deter illegal migration, election after election the parties refuse to enact this, indeed do their very best to achieve the opposite.
Why do the war criminals of Washington & Westminster whitewash Israel murdering Palestinian Children but refuse to accept the Ukrainian Gangster is murdering his own people in his pursuit of WW3?
So why is everyone saying that we'd need another ref to approe rejoining the EU, or at least the SM and CU? There's no constitutional rule saying that. And neither, btw, is there any constitutional bar to another Scottish Indy ref "within a generation". NT forgets that here in Scotland there have actually been three refs, and if the 2014 Indy ref had been after the 2016 Brexit ref rather than before it, I bet that "yes" would have won. It was worry about being outwith the EU which swung it for "No", and look how that turned out.
In some ways the AV referendum did more damage. The Tories represent it as a referendum on PR. The LibDems never said this. As I understand it AV was the only alternative on offer for the vote. PR was not offered by Cameron. When I lobbied him, my Tory MP actually claimed the LibDems wanted AV as their PR alternative.
The EU referendum was at least a clear choice. It deserved a referendum as it was a constitutional change. However as such it should have required a supermajority to pass. Not 50%+1. Making it consultative and then calling the result "the will of the people" tore representative democracy apart.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I agree.
I think there are two circumstances in which referenda make sense.
The first is where everyone knows in advance that the outcome will be overwhelming support for one position. The point wouldn't be to make a decision, but to draw a line - to be a way for society to say 'we've changed'. e.g. a referendum to mark the end of Apartheid in South Africa asking 'do we want to be a multi-ethnic democracy?'. You wouldn't want to hold such a referendum though if the answer was in any doubt, or even if the losing side was going to be anything but a small minority.
The other is where you're really asking a fairly open question and are clear in advance that the referendum is a starting point for elected politicians. So you might ask "Should parliament try to resolve the social care crisis, even if that means a rise in general taxation?" It wouldn't attempt to get a detailed answer, but just to kick off the work of MPs.
You probably don't NEED referenda to achieve either outcome above, but those are the circumstances in which I think it might make sense to have one.
Have now watched the video... And basically, yeah... I agree.
I love this, the Leave vote imposed on MPs something they didn't want to do.
That must be why when voters continually vote in GEs for parties that promise to control and lower migration (Tories and Labour since the days of Major and Blair), deter illegal migration, election after election the parties refuse to enact this, indeed do their very best to achieve the opposite.
Not that it is any excuse Nick but when you become an 86 year old working class Socialist scouser with abysmal IT skills anything goes!
https://youtu.be/JQFFjVl2veE?si=holf9-RywseLRayU
https://youtu.be/nzaA8_onh3Y?si=Vytzlkcs-M08wIGB
The war in Ukraine will not stop until Starmer and his warmongering maniacs stop providing the Ukrainian Gangster with financial support
Why is Starmer giving UK Pensioners money to a Ukrainian Gangster
https://youtu.be/bnE4FqTCtfw?si=6yfydcW3u0I0xQIl
https://youtu.be/ogd8h-k6jRI?si=QQ4xmIRkorvSEZgw
https://youtu.be/BWny4ijtbzs?si=prJ5MZPMFgKxGk_6
https://youtu.be/sZuq4YK1OHI?si=RqOglDjZOYN4mvGf
https://youtu.be/v_omuSHfyQ4?si=g7pryHu10jBegkRf
Why do the war criminals of Washington & Westminster whitewash Israel murdering Palestinian Children but refuse to accept the Ukrainian Gangster is murdering his own people in his pursuit of WW3?
https://youtu.be/FaioYWDYiIw?si=z8dv1x8_9WhmHAzU
Why are you posting this here? It has nothing to do with the topic in hand
Not that it is any excuse Nick but when you become an 86 year old working class Socialist scouser with abysmal IT skills anything goes!