|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 22, 2021 13:06:19 GMT
The problem is that some people consider that a vote at a single point in time about a particular issue means that such an issue is resolved in perpetuity. If that were the case then we may as well stop this whole election malarky and accept the particular circumstances that are in place at the moment in elected bodies up and down this land and that everyone who is not in power or has their own way should just accept things for what they are and do absolutely nothing to try and change things. But in reality, well in a democracy at least, and we still have a semi-functioning one, questions are never 100% settled, the people on the other side of issues are never going to fold in and not try to change things and, in the unfortunate situation where referendums have become the norm, a development that I deeply regret, pursuit of them as a way of simplistically trying to change things is easier than ever. When something is voted for it should be implemented not resisted. Imagine a general election sees a different party get a majority but the incumbent government refuses to resign and recommends more elections until they get a majority back. You would find people to argue that that is perfectly constitutional but there would rightly be outrage. The same with revotes on referendums until you get the outcome you want. No vote is set in stone for all time but there should be some reasonable period before an issue is voted on again to provide confidence and certainty. The principle is even set down in the legislation on referendums on directly elected mayors - you can't have another vote for at least ten years. Scaling up the national level would suggest a longer period. Given precedent that would suggest the earliest for another referendum on whether or not to be a member of the EU (or whatever it has become by then) is 11 July 2057. (Well perhaps wait one more day as the 12 July is the Thursday that week. Or assuming holidays are similar then maybe wait until September?) |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Nov 22, 2021 17:05:14 GMT
The problem is that some people consider that a vote at a single point in time about a particular issue means that such an issue is resolved in perpetuity. If that were the case then we may as well stop this whole election malarky and accept the particular circumstances that are in place at the moment in elected bodies up and down this land and that everyone who is not in power or has their own way should just accept things for what they are and do absolutely nothing to try and change things. But in reality, well in a democracy at least, and we still have a semi-functioning one, questions are never 100% settled, the people on the other side of issues are never going to fold in and not try to change things and, in the unfortunate situation where referendums have become the norm, a development that I deeply regret, pursuit of them as a way of simplistically trying to change things is easier than ever. When something is voted for it should be implemented not resisted. Imagine a general election sees a different party get a majority but the incumbent government refuses to resign and recommends more elections until they get a majority back. You would find people to argue that that is perfectly constitutional but there would rightly be outrage. The same with revotes on referendums until you get the outcome you want. The answer to that problem was solved in the Commonwealth realms, like in British Columbia, 2017. The Queen's Representative in BC refused the request to call new elections after the post-election Queen's Speech was rejected and called the Opposition Leader to form a government. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 22, 2021 17:34:14 GMT
When something is voted for it should be implemented not resisted. Imagine a general election sees a different party get a majority but the incumbent government refuses to resign and recommends more elections until they get a majority back. You would find people to argue that that is perfectly constitutional but there would rightly be outrage. The same with revotes on referendums until you get the outcome you want. The answer to that problem was solved in the Commonwealth realms, like in British Columbia, 2017. The Queen's Representative in BC refused the request to call new elections after the post-election Queen's Speech was rejected and called the Opposition Leader to form a government. In that situation Clark threw in the towel rather than being dismissed. And there was still outrage at the attempt to cling to power. |
|
