Referendum - Yes/No?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

They seem to be quite popular in Europe, although not in the UK. Now Iceland has decided to hold a referendum on whether they should should repay $3.1bn its banks owe to the UK and Netherlands. I fully expect them to vote 'no' even though it would damage Icelands aim to join the EU.

The Conservatives stated that they would hold a referendum on the EU treaty if they came to power (before this changed). In my opinion this was a stupid idea and one the decisive factors that made me not vote Tory in the EU elections last year.

Having worked in customer service for 4 years I have come to believe that the general public are idiots. What on earth does unemployed Chantelle who lives on a council estate in Blackpool know about the EU treaty that a politician with a first class degree and is paid to research the topic not know?

For example I can imagine the thinking patterns of some people if we had a referendum on the Euro currency.

'ooh the coins are shiny, I like the Euro'

'it means I don't have to change currency when I go abroad, it's great'

'we fought against Hitler in WW2 and now we are giving everything up that we died for!'

Nothing to do with the actual economic benefits for the country.

The only thing that referendums do is give the power from the politicians THAT WE ELECTED to the Newspapers who can sway public vote with their populism bullshlt!!

[Alfa Fan]

Lets have a referendum on having a referendum!

[Jag_Warrior]

I see your point. But let's be honest, couldn't the same be said about democracy in general? Just look at various boards when a political issue comes up. After Obama's election, there were those on the right who claimed that the people who voted for Obama were ignorant idiots. And there are those on the left who would say the same about the GOPers, had they won.

Although some in the general public may not understand an issue as fully as some politicians, politicians don't always vote with their heads, as much as what benefits them personally. Being smart and being honest are two different things.

Just my two cents... or "pence", as you fellows say. :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Just my two cents... or "pence", as you fellows say. :)

Or cents if we had the Euro ;)

[Hondo]

Referendums provide an accurate veiwpoint of the caring, participating electorate to their governmental representatives. Notice I said caring and participating. These are people that bother to take the time to monitor social conditions, what their government is doing, and what other governments are doing. I'm not talking about those that only show up for major elections, similar to those who only go to church twice a year for Easter and Christmas.

Having a first class degree and being paid for research means you are educated and have a job. It does not mean you're intelligent, have common sense, an ability to think independently or have a clue how the real world works. In addition, it doesn't mean that yours is the correct solution or the only solution.

As long as humans have been studying economies and producing economists, we shouldn't have economic crisises. But we do. Highly educated players on one side say a crash is coming but the same talent on the other side says no crash is coming. The same educations, at the same institutions, looking at the same data coming to different conclusions. How can that be?

Mr. Brown, you are on a jury for a murder trial. There are no witnesses. The prosecution has DNA samples and a well dressed man with a pocket load of first class degrees. This is his DNA expert and he points, and shows, and produces numbers and colors that prove the defendant is the killer. Now the defence gets going and they have a guy just like the prosecution's guy. He points and shows, and produces numbers and colors, and says no, the other guy messed up this test and didn't read the results right on the other tests.
Now you're in the jury room and have to come up with a verdict. What are you going to do? You know Jack about DNA so you don't know who may be wrong or who may be right. Ultimately it's a popularity contest and you vote for the one that makes you feel good about what you have done.

On the other hand, same setting but the defendant beat the guy on the head with something unti he was dead. The defendant claims it was an accident. He claims they were driving around and every time they hit a bump the steering wheel would come off the steering column like they always do and hit his buddy in the head. The 4th time it happened, it killed him. Accident. You're going to convict this guy and not look back because you know, by your own experience, steering wheels don't come off as a common occurance.

The referendum in Iceland will allow the government to get a feeling for the mood, will and fears of it's people before any political jobs are on the line. On a referendum the numbers are there, you don't need the mass media to tell you what they mean.

Could be the EU isn't a big deal to everybody. There may be some nations in it now that wish they weren't. You're talking Iceland. Who even thinks of Iceland on a reular basis? What are you going to do to them if they do default? Repossess the country? In the real world they may be better off going into default. Especially if they feel they've been sold a lot of worthless crap to begin with.

[Sonic]

Certainly referendums shouldn't be held on every topic (and I think the iceland example is overkill), however certain big choices should not be left to the elected MP's (or each countries equivelent) regardless of whether we voted them in or not. For example if I were to, say, vote green party I wouldn't be voting for them because of their views on europe. Therefore if sometime after the question of closer ties to the EU cropped up I wouldn't have a clue if the person I voted for in a general election shared my views on that matter and therefore I would want a say in a referendum.

[Mark in Oshawa]

First off, if the people of Iceland think their nation can default and run from 3.1 Billion dollars in loans, then they truly are out of touch with reality. The fact is, if you go personally bankrupt, you know you wont be seeing any real loans for about a decade. Are people really stupid enough to think their COUNTRY would default on a loan? And it is fine to say they don't want to pay for it, but they elected the imbeciles that put them in that hole. Votes have consequences.

Refrenda can have a purpose where the populace is being asked to make a moral decision that is basically not going to hurt the country either way. It is a snap shot of where society may be on a moral issue such as Capital punishment or abortion. Whether it is right or wrong is in your personal interpretation but the country can move on. The politicians who use refrenda to make a decision such as this are cowards. They got the country into the mess, they have to get it out. Iceland was using borrowed money to push it forward and over did it. You cannot escape that as a person, nor as a country. Now...what will the US do with Obama running up the tab? You think this is a mess in Iceland, I can see the President (Obama or his successor) 5 years from now in the same hole....and a refrenda wouldn't mean jack....you cant run from that big a debt....

[Sonic]

The politicians who use refrenda to make a decision such as this are cowards. They got the country into the mess, they have to get it out.

Exactly my feelings too. So what if 100% of the population votes no to repayment!

As I said already, the Iceland referendum is the perfect example of "reasons not to have a referendum 101.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Exactly my feelings too. So what if 100% of the population votes no to repayment!

As I said already, the Iceland referendum is the perfect example of "reasons not to have a referendum 101.

I think it is a good idea for moral issues or say changing how the nation elects its members of Parliament, say from a riding system to proportional reprsentation. On something like that, I don't want the polititicans to have the final say.

In California, they use referenda but the politicians don't put them out, they are to be nominated for a vote by citizens groups who petition the proposition to a vote. The problem is, they keep voting to not raise taxes, then elect idiots who wont stop spending money....it is a maddening cycle of stupidity really. Then again, that is California in a nutshell.

[Hondo]

In 5 years you won't get one thin dime from us down here in Zimbabwe II.

I'm curious what consequences y'all have in mind for Iceland? What can you really do to them? They won't be completely isolated, someone will still deal with them. Iceland was here before the EU and managed to survive, they can do it again if they are willing.

[Hazell B]

At what point does anyone expect Brits to a) bother understanding the options, b) work out the effect of their desired result or c) bother to vote anyway?

[Mark in Oshawa]

In 5 years you won't get one thin dime from us down here in Zimbabwe II.

I'm curious what consequences y'all have in mind for Iceland? What can you really do to them? They won't be completely isolated, someone will still deal with them. Iceland was here before the EU and managed to survive, they can do it again if they are willing.

They will not need the EU, but I can tell you that they will have to run no deficits at all if they default on their debt this time. That may make living in Iceland just a tad tougher than it is today...

[Sonic]

I think it is a good idea for moral issues or say changing how the nation elects its members of Parliament, say from a riding system to proportional reprsentation. On something like that, I don't want the polititicans to have the final say.

In California, they use referenda but the politicians don't put them out, they are to be nominated for a vote by citizens groups who petition the proposition to a vote. The problem is, they keep voting to not raise taxes, then elect idiots who wont stop spending money....it is a maddening cycle of stupidity really. Then again, that is California in a nutshell.

I didn't realise that. Madness!

[Mark in Oshawa]

I didn't realise that. Madness!

It is. The problem is one group has the power to keep the state from raising taxes, but they don't grasp the disconnect by electing politicians who don't believe in it. California's politicians keep finding new ways to raise other taxes now covered by the propositions. Except...they have finally run out of revenue with the downturn in the economy. It is a mess, and many US states have taxed the heck out of their citizens only to be in a similar hole, just not as deep. It is the curse of politicians always trying to solve the world's problems with your money. Sooner or later the party has to end, and real people get hurt.

[Hondo]

They aren't trying to solve any problems, they're trying to get re-elected. The best way to do that is to keep promising something for nothing to the idiots that a-vote for you and b-probably don't pay taxes anyway.

[Drew]

I like the Swiss way. You get more 100,000 signatures and you can have a referendum, that seems like democracy to me.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I like the Swiss way. You get more 100,000 signatures and you can have a referendum, that seems like democracy to me.

In Switzerland it works, in California it allowed them to force the politicians to freeze income taxes and property taxes without a further plebcite to raise them, BUT as I said, the pols just kept thinking of new ways to raise other fees and taxes until they hit a spending wall.....

[Lousada]

A good referendum should grasp the whole problem in one yes/no question. Otherwise you will never get to know the motivations for approving or disproving the subject. It is almost always impossible to do this, because one measure affects a thousand other things.

This was my main problem with the EU-treaty-referendum. The final result was a big no, but nobody knew why?? So they made a few random adjustments to show they cared and then approved it anyway.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Referenda should be on moral questions and be more or less non binding IMO. I just don't like gov't by poll. We do that, might as well just dump the Parliamentry system and have gov't run by an ever changing bunch of questions. Countries would grind themselves into holes because no one would think even 6 months ahead...

[Rollo]

They seem to be quite popular in Europe, although not in the UK. Now Iceland has decided to hold a referendum on whether they should should repay $3.1bn its banks owe to the UK and Netherlands. I fully expect them to vote 'no' even though it would damage Icelands aim to join the EU.

I can understand Sainsbury's or Tesco holding a referendum but Iceland? I would have thought that if they owed $3.1bn then they should just raise their prices on frozen beef burgers and chicken tenders... 75p is enough to send anyone bankrupt.

http://www.iceland.co.uk/

[Hondo]

Look at the bright side. Iceland defaults and decides to not make repayment. Now the British and Dutch banks can slide that $3.1 bn over to the bad debt column and write it off their taxes. Now a couple of bank executives get $10 million in bonuses for saving the bank so much in taxes.

WOOF WOOF WOOF ...anybody hear a dog chasing it's tail?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Look at the bright side. Iceland defaults and decides to not make repayment. Now the British and Dutch banks can slide that $3.1 bn over to the bad debt column and write it off their taxes. Now a couple of bank executives get $10 million in bonuses for saving the bank so much in taxes.

WOOF WOOF WOOF ...anybody hear a dog chasing it's tail?

What is really good tho is Iceland if they need money next year will get a loan even in spite of it....