| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Democracy And Referenda | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Thursday, 14. June 2007, 19:03 (425 Views) | |
| newminster | Thursday, 14. June 2007, 19:03 Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
I was going to raise this as a point on the 'Catholic Economy' thread but I think it is either worth a thread of its own or it's not worth our while pursuing. I was alarmed to discover in one of our heavyweight newspapers the other day the suggestion that Gordon Brown might not be keen calling a referendum on any changes to the European status quo "because he might lose it". It occurred to me to ask "How can you 'lose' a referendum?" Ask a question; get an answer. What's to lose? I also read (at least in part) an article earlier in the week that made the point that the Americans are more democratic than the Europeans. The point made was that there was the usual sneering by the European politicians and media that Dubya was forever looking over his shoulder to see what the "audience at home" was thinking or saying. But is this not the essence of democracy? In the UK (and probably in other parts of Europe) we use the word 'populist' as a pejorative term. In the US the president has been elected by the people and is expected by and large to do what the people want him to do. He is right to be aware of what they want when it comes to making decisions. In Europe on the other hand we seem increasingly to have a political class that is frightened to ask the people what they want in case the people give the 'wrong' answer. If Gordon Brown is afraid he might 'lose' a referendum it must be because he is planning to do something which he believes the majority of the British people don't want him to do. Which is the more moral stance to take and which is the more democratic and where do we as Christians stand in the debate? Is our representative democracy becoming corrupt and if so how do we go about rectifying that? |
|
|
| PJD | Thursday, 14. June 2007, 19:10 Post #2 |
|
I sympathise with what you say Newminster. Referrenda is in fact a good democratic procedure; but the powers that be have never liked it for the reasons you gave. They don't like it in principle; but they attack it not in principle but in practice - by referring to the difficulties involved in phrasing the question - valid I suppose if you have idiots phrasing things (laugh). PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 16. June 2007, 15:12 Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
|
There is no point in having a referendum on anything unless Government really do want to ascertain and abide by the will of the electors. Stalin liked things his own way, at least he was honest about that. Where would a Catholic Prime Minister stand if he were to ask the electorate to vote on whether to repeal the Abortion Act? He could confidently predict the Ayes would lose and the Noes would have it. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Sunday, 17. June 2007, 10:59 Post #4 |
|
The point is Rose - or at least one point - that there would be an actual "debate" - on and off the air - both sides given equal time presumably. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Deacon Robert | Sunday, 17. June 2007, 14:33 Post #5 |
|
I try to stay out of political discussions, but in this case I can't. I have been following the developement of the EU for a good number of years ( I had wanted to move to Belgium when I retired--Not anymore). It seems to me that the ruling elite is doing everything in it's power to negate any input from the people. The article I have attached, if true, is just another example of govt. trying to bypass the people. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/9970/ |
|
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne | |
![]() |
|
| MickCook | Sunday, 17. June 2007, 14:52 Post #6 |
![]()
|
This thread seems to have shades of "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" to it. No doubt Bernard Wooley was quick to point out to Gordon Brown that if he held a referendum it would give the people a share in the decision making process. Then, of course, the First Secretary had kittens. "Bernard! What are you suggesting?" Oh the shame of it Bernard.... Britain, a democracy! What do you mean we are suppose to be democratic? We let the electorate think that they are part of a democracy, then we, the Civil Service tell them what to do. I thought you knew that. We can't have people deciding for themselves how to run their lives! |
|
:) Mick The Cook Companies | |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Monday, 18. June 2007, 15:56 Post #7 |
|
As with so much else, collectively the above and before and still to come, the disputaional, arguementative debatable platforms are just that-especially in the UK;look where protests got the miners;you have to go back to the suffragettes to see protest in action and then by a mnority yes; voting rights for all? When was that circa 1928 and in the north of Ireland when? Now on a simple academic point- define democracy without the usual Churchillian quotes. Squabbledom- how's that. Deal or no Deal? Winner takes all? Tomorrow Suu Kyi will be 62; who here is going to send here a birthday card? OK the Burmese will not allow it through but then they vigrouously claim to be a democracy. Well ther is one example of democracy- a woman locked up in solitary confinement- yes a one woman democracy and we critisise the EEU |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Monday, 18. June 2007, 16:14 Post #8 |
|
Unregistered
|
Mick, the point about Sir Humphrey was that to the extent he was 'real' (and a lot of people inside and outside the Civil Service said he nearly was) he was acting in the best interests of the country and of the people as he saw it. His little perks were the tickets to Glyndebourne or the Lords' Test or Royal Ascot and the seat on assorted boards once he retired. Basically, no harm done even though you might have disagreed with the principle. We are suffering at the moment from a Prime Minister who is in the middle of a 'farewell tour' (excuse me!) and is desperately trying to secure his 'legacy' (excuse me, again!) Margaret Thatcher's legacy was either the destruction of the mining industry or the Trade Unions or the freeing of Brtitain from the shackles of militant trade unionism or the country's re-establishment as a force in the world (pick your own from whichever point of view you like). But for sure she did not spend 11 years in Downing Street constantly looking over her shoulder or asking her advisers whether what she was doing would help secure her legacy. No more did any of her predecessors that I can think of. It seems to me that a major problem with the EU at the moment (and an argument for a fixed term president of the Commission) is that every head of government is looking to their 'legacy' at the end of their six-month term in the top chair and that is all they care about. Hence Frau Merkel saying (in effect), "I don't give a stuff what the French people or the Dutch people said or what the British people would say if we gave them a chance. I know what's best for my place in history and if you don't like it, too bad!" 'Europe' never was a democracy. it was from the beginning an oligarchy and will remain so. |
|
|
| Josephine | Monday, 18. June 2007, 20:55 Post #9 |
![]()
|
Those who follow the progress of referenda held in other European countries over recent years may have noticed that when the result differed from that desired by the governments of the countries concerned the practice is as follows: a suitable interval (in which to forget the undesirable result?) large amounts of "publicity/information" (propaganda?) after a year or two, another referendum .....and , if that doesn't produce the the desired outcome, repeat the above until it is achieved. And then the politicians wonder why no-one has any respect for them ! ! ! Josephine
|
![]() |
|
| sumermamma | Monday, 18. June 2007, 21:16 Post #10 |
|
Josephine, I believe we have come to a time when politics and morals are totally incompatable. We should not even hope for any type of moral behavior from our politicians. Seems politics selects out or trains an amoral creature, much as Pavlov trained a dog who salavated when he rang the bell. sm |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Monday, 18. June 2007, 21:43 Post #11 |
|
You have to feel sorry for our current politicians, especially Catholic voting the wrong way; they are like wounded animals; pitiful when reading some of their recent wailings, twisting and turnings. Medication consists in right conscience, and we are required to be like the good Samaritan and attempt to administer it. How? – primarily by prayer – which is the greatest of medicines. And don’t we all possess at least some relatives in heaven who understand what Catholicism is up against in the EU, and who know of our concerns and entreaties. Greet them accordingly within your memories [just a suggestion]. Good word that – ‘oligarchy’. I agree. I wonder if it’s just another name for Divine Right of Kings? We have always had ‘oligarchy’ really. Trouble is the fault-line only really surfaces when things go wrong – as they are doing so now when a special kind of madness has set in. But sadly today written logic doesn’t seem to count for much with our so-called democrats; or indeed logic at all. I suppose all we can do in practical terms is not to vote for any of them. PJD |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Monday, 18. June 2007, 22:26 Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
On the principle of "Don't vote; you'll encourage them."? I sympathise but there is some truth in the adage that you get the government you deserve. I suppose that means "you" collectively; I hope this isn't the government I deserve. I've always tried to be good, honest! :( I suppose in a way we're back again to the "Render unto Caesar ..." principle. Politics is the art of the possible, and all that. We may (probably don't) like a lot of what happens but if you go round electing people just because they happen to toe the Catholic line (at this moment) on one matter then what about all the other matters which may be equally important in their own way? How, for example, do you differentiate if your candidate of choice is anti-abortion and pro-stem cell research? Or pro-Catholic schools and pro-gay rights? Etc. |
|
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 19. June 2007, 20:13 Post #13 |
|
Newminster. Just an observation that's all - but we cannot just add up the rights and then the wrongs and divide them to make an average and act accordingly. I don't like that kind of maths. But 50-50 appeals to me if I'm betting (smile). PJD |
![]() |
|
| newminster | Tuesday, 19. June 2007, 22:10 Post #14 |
|
Unregistered
|
You're right. But my point is that if we take a moral stand (which we should) and then apply that to our politicians and they are found wanting on that one subject and we refuse to vote for them on that basis, then we are copping out of our responsibilities, because if you take that ultra-purist attitude you will never get done those things you want done. My MP is "pro-choice" but I vote for him because of the other things that he supports and believes in. I have to assume that there are individuals who will support "pro-life" MPs even though they may disagree with them on similar reasoning to mine. The alternative is that Catholics opt out of politics completely and I don't think that is what Christ had in mind. If I'm wrong I'm sure He'll find a way of telling me sooner or later! |
|
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 20. June 2007, 19:42 Post #15 |
|
Yes - if you are wrong Newminster I am sure that He will tell you. I think the more immediate concern is those Catholic MP's. Perhaps dealing with the others could wait until our own house is put in order. PJD |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







3:44 PM Jul 11