Is it justifiable to execute criminals?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?

How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.

[Tash.]

Wrong, you are both only refusing to support the idea of a referendum because you know what the outcome would be, you cannot deny or state that other peoples opinions are worth less aka 'un-informed' just because they do not match your own.

Tash you say referendums are a waste of money yet support the Labour Party, I think that just says all we need to know. Its only a waste of money to you because its giving the people of this country the right to drop your left-wing/Labour policies and choose for themselves how they want their country to be run, not how the leftist elite want it to be run. The only reason someone can be afraid of the outcome of a referendum is if they know they will lose, hence why we do not have the opperunity given to us to have referendums, and hence why the UK and all of Europe has been denied a referendum on the most soverignty-infringing document we have ever had placed on this country and Europe.

You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed.

As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.

How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.

I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.

[Ardemax]

How on earth is that even comparable to referendums on same-sex marriage, the European Union and the death penalty? - it isn't. It would be like asking me what i'd do if the public voted 'yes' to Britain peeling itself off the side of the earth and floating into space.

You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed.

As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.



I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.

Tash got it in one.

I saw you make the point you'd put across about following the public because it's "democracy" as you clearly put it.

So why can't you answer the question?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You didn't read what I wrote did you.. the main thng I wrote was that the decisions are uninformed, and i'm unsure why you chose to write them in inverted commas because the majority are. If you don't understand the workings of the EU you cannot have an informed opinion on whether we should be a member. Similarly, if you do not understand that the court system is not infallible then you do not have an informed opinion on whether or not criminals should be executed. It's a fairly simple concept. I for one would not want to vote on the EU because I admit I do not fully understand the reasons for/against it myself, and I realise that my opinion on the matter would be ill-informed.

If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.

As for the comment about me supporting labour, yes I do, but you do realise that Labour have to spend money in order to get us out of the recession. And i'm going to preempt a part of your reply and answer it. No Labour did not get us into this mess, nor did Brown. The money they have spent has clearly worked and referendums are a waste of money because they are not essential. You say you want to cut these massive debts we have, well i'm afraid adding to them by having a nation-wide referendum on everything is not going to help much.

Of course they didn't get us into this mess, this mess is the cycle of capitalism and will and must happen time and time again for economics to succeed. The way Labour handled the economy since 1997 and the way they continue to handle it now is a disgrace, so yes it does make a mockery of what you state when you say you support Labour but claim referendums would add to our debt.

Referendums cost buttons compared to some of the things we spend money on, some of them even daily. Do not use the debt argument, what a shoddy excuse.

I think what Ardemax was getting at is (and i'm sure you knew this but took the option to divert attention away from the fact that you didn't want to answer), you have said that what the public wants as a whole is the most important thing and is the correct thing. Well clearly in some situations it is not, and this is exactly the reason referendums do not work.

Actually no sorry, Ardemaxs example is nothing like holding a referendum on the death penalty, the European Union or same-sex marriages. On what the public wants, yes it is the most important thing. So YES, in terms of democracy, if people voted for a policy made by Adolf Hitler (who somehow has come back to life) then yes, it should be accepted. The fact is that the British people are not Nazis, are not evil and would not vote for a policy such as 'kill all jews' and so forth, so what a poor example which proves nothing.

Tash got it in one.

I saw you make the point you'd put across about following the public because it's "democracy" as you clearly put it.

So why can't you answer the question?

I have answered the question, if it passed then it'd have to be accepted but the fact remains that the vast majority of the British people do not want all jews to be exterminated in death camps therefore it would never even make it to a referendum, or parliament for that matter. Referendums would also protect groups, democracy should not hurt certain groups - that said, criminals are an exception and i'm afraid I put justice before the likes of Ian Bradey and Ian Huntley.

Have Switzerland held a referendum/planning to hold a referendum on exterminating the jews anytime soon? - no, they are not.

[Ardemax]

If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.

Of course they didn't get us into this mess, this mess is the cycle of capitalism and will and must happen time and time again for economics to succeed. The way Labour handled the economy since 1997 and the way they continue to handle it now is a disgrace, so yes it does make a mockery of what you state when you say you support Labour but claim referendums would add to our debt.

Referendums cost buttons compared to some of the things we spend money on, some of them even daily. Do not use the debt argument, what a shoddy excuse.

Actually no sorry, Ardemaxs example is nothing like holding a referendum on the death penalty, the European Union or same-sex marriages. On what the public wants, yes it is the most important thing. So YES, in terms of democracy, if people voted for a policy made by Adolf Hitler (who somehow has come back to life) then yes, it should be accepted. The fact is that the British people are not Nazis, are not evil and would not vote for a policy such as 'kill all jews' and so forth, so what a poor example which proves nothing.



I have answered the question, if it passed then it'd have to be accepted but the fact remains that the vast majority of the British people do not want all jews to be exterminated in death camps therefore it would never even make it to a referendum, or parliament for that matter. Referendums would also protect groups, democracy should not hurt certain groups - that said, criminals are an exception and i'm afraid I put justice before the likes of Ian Bradey and Ian Huntley.

Have Switzerland held a referendum/planning to hold a referendum on exterminating the jews anytime soon? - no, they are not.

I'm sorry but you failed to answer the direct question, there's no cons about it.

So are you seriously telling me, if the public wanted something as insane as to exterminate a particular group or country, and your cabinet said we couldn't, you would agree with the public?

[alexxxxx]

If you do not have an 'informed' choice on the political parties (as the majority don't) then surely in your logic we should just say to hell with it and scrap elections. On the European Union, well i'm the opposite. I know my stuff on it and believe its very harmful to this country, however I would not put my opinion above that of somebody elses and disregard theirs in pushing ahead with what I want.

for the poltical parties, you are voting on their policies and their manifesto that they publish, you should be making an informed decision on that. it's complete bull poo that you know how that EU works when you thought the council of europe was the same thing as the EU. when it isn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm sorry but you failed to answer the direct question, there's no cons about it.

So are you seriously telling me, if the public wanted something as insane as to exterminate a particular group or country, and your cabinet said we couldn't, you would agree with the public?

I did answer and you know yourself that I did, hence why you are now asking me whether or not I seriously said that. Yes I am, thats democracy. If a Nazi Party won an election fair and square then a Nazi Party is the democratic government of the country. However what you have ignored is my very point; the vast majority of the British people do not want jews exterminated and would never vote for a Nazi Party - therefore comparing a referendum on the extermination of the jews to a referendum on whether or not the death penalty should be brought back makes no sense.

for the poltical parties, you are voting on their policies and their manifesto that they publish, you should be making an informed decision on that. it's complete bull poo that you know how that EU works when you thought the council of europe was the same thing as the EU. when it isn't.

The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

[alexxxxx]

The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

Then why bother with elections at all with your logic? if everyone is as 'informed' as everyone else, why should we get a parliament to vote in laws when we can do it ourselves? has it ever occurred to you why perhaps we have a parliamentary democracy, it's because it's impossible for everyone to run the country efficiently or cheaply.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then why bother with elections at all with your logic? if everyone is as 'informed' as everyone else, why should we get a parliament to vote in laws when we can do it ourselves? has it ever occurred to you why perhaps we have a parliamentary democracy, it's because it's impossible for everyone to run the country efficiently or cheaply.

..because there are too many trivial laws to pass via referendum, it would be ideal to let the people make the choice in nearly everything but is not realistic. However holding referendums on important issues such as the death penalty and the European Union (as Switzerland does) is possible and is needed.

On the parliamentary democracy, Switzerland also has a parliament. Referendums are not expensive and are not unaffordable, infact ideally national and local referendums could be held with council elections every spring depending on what issues were being put to referendum.

You know alex that if put to a referendum the death penalty would most likely return and that the United Kingdom would leave the European Union - yet you can't accept that the people of Britain should make this choice and not people with the same mindset as you, who currently make our laws & regulations.

You may disagree with the general populations right-wing stances on things such as the European Union and the death penalty, but don't question whether people are intelligent enough or not to make their own decisions on issues such as these, because by doing so its little wonder many people are so disillusioned with politics.

[alexxxxx]

..because there are too many trivial laws to pass via referendum, it would be ideal to let the people make the choice in nearly everything but is not realistic. However holding referendums on important issues such as the death penalty and the European Union (as Switzerland does) is possible and is needed.

On the parliamentary democracy, Switzerland also has a parliament. Referendums are not expensive and are not unaffordable, infact ideally national and local referendums could be held with council elections every spring depending on what issues were being put to referendum.

You know alex that if put to a referendum the death penalty would most likely return and that the United Kingdom would leave the European Union - yet you can't accept that the people of Britain should make this choice and not people with the same mindset as you, who currently make our laws & regulations.

You may disagree with the general populations right-wing stances on things such as the European Union and the death penalty, but don't question whether people are intelligent enough or not to make their own decisions on issues such as these, because by doing so its little wonder many people are so disillusioned with politics.

in who's opinion are certain laws 'trivial?' I don't know the whole of switzerland's system, but I disagree that the majority of people should be allowed to ban minarets. surely people should be allowed to practice their religion regardless of what other people think. That's called freedom. That's why I think that the system is very flawed. Who decides what should be set to a referendum and that certain laws passed by the majority could in theory conflict with minority's personal freedoms.

Your reasoning for referendums seems to split from the feeling that the state should not play a large part in people's lives - Why don't we just get rid of the state altogether and let people set their own laws for their own land...