For the benefit of all our viewers I’d like to mention Europe has had the Euro for 2.5 years now and no one really noticed or paid attention until the currency was issued 6 months ago. The Euro had been in existance for two years before that.
a) I know it is spelled existence
b) I hate posting at the end or beginning of a page
It was a good and significant point, nevertheless.
I just haven’t got round to it yet, as I was busy on this one arguing with views that you put forward in this thread. I’ll try and go over there soon. Personally I think the issue of federation is key to the euro and key to federation is the question of what makes up a nation, so it’s only right that the debate organically went that way. It it is a tiny bit off the original subject, so I’ll take it over there.
B-b-but I thought the USE was supposed to lead to peace and war and happiness and none of this people fighting for their independence stuff?
Huh? Don’t get you. Can you explain a bit more please?
The idea of it being better to control your own finances? And what’s wrong with nationalism?
It rather depends what’s in the constitution, doesn’t it?
I’ll take it up in the other thread - just wanted to note that you’re yet again insulting opinions different to yours, this time as “dated.” Can you please stop doing that, as it’s just making me associate you with people I’d rather not.
You cant turn time back.
Who is to control what? Sorry MrT, but this is not a macroeconomic argument of any sort.
It promotes distrust, fosters supremacist delusions and leads to isolation. One is bad for international cooperation, the second destabilizes the world and the third is culturally, economically and socially speaking a dead end. We all tried it in a big way in Europe between 1618 and 1945 and it didn’t work very well, did it?
Under the circumstances it does not. The EU has a government. That government has certain rights that are above the sovereignty of the member states. The member states retain some sovereignty under that system. Read MW definitions once again and you will find that we are a federation without a constitution, which I for one find troubling because I like to have my rights protected. But you see the isolationists around our little Union still have enough influence (especially in the UK) to scare the member states from proceeding quickly and openly on this issue for fear of alienating us. So thanks to our own moronic nostalgia, we have ended up in a federation where our rights are only vaguely protected by the EU Charter (pending ratification of the Treaty of Nice), while the federal government has gained legally binding influence over us. Note however that this is not a mistake of the federalists and the EU, but a situation forced upon us by the individual member states’ inability and/or unwillingness to deal with the anti-federalist minority for fear of whipping up nationalistic shit storms. Note also that the charter is the template for a future constitution.
No I’m not. By the prevailing definition of “dated”, what you described previously is dated. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but a clarification as to my thoughts in response to your guessing them.
Sparc
Cjb,
To begin with I’d like to thank you for the effort you made. I have been requesting this from various anti-EU posters from the UK to no avail so far. Not being of, or in the UK myself I have found it hard to get my mind around it. You have convinced me that there were some half-truths and maybe even one or two lies brandished in 1975, but as you shall see you were not lied to as much as you seem to think.
I sometimes get the feeling that a federal EU is to some of you people becoming a little like the spooks under the childhood bed, big, nasty, scary things with huge fangs that in fact are only the shadows of a fluttering curtain.
You have also convinced me once and for all that referendums are dubiously democratic and cowardly by showing me what you think is and isn’t a lie. Politicians should dare stand up to their decisions and risk being thrown out of government for them instead of hiding behind ‘the will of the people’. That’s what elections are for.
Which cannot be said to be a lie. Taken out of context as it is I can’t judge. It looks specious if it was part of a rebuttal of federalism. If a clarification on the state of legal affairs in the EEC at the time it is true.
Which is not a lie at the time, nor is it per se a lie as towards the ensuing evolution since it was not certain what the legal status of the EU would be until about 15 or so years later.
Which is absolute truth. This is so to this very day. Our council works on absolute consensus, if the UK minister says no it is no, and the honorable member is indeed appointed by and answers to parliament.
Not a lie per se, but the first sentence is specious. In any case it begs for definition of “essential sovereignty”, which incidentally I would be more than interested to hear cjb’s, Go Alien’s and MrThompson’s views on.
I fail to see how this is a lie. The UK parliament has veto power in the Council and remains the main democratic chamber of UK governance. It’s pretty bold English, but then again it’s a politician speaking in the UK parliament, where when I checked last words were of the boldest and roundest nature.
I was aware of this one cjb, but look at the date will you. It was said five years before the referendum, that is not quite the temporal relevance we are looking for.
I would surmise that the Honorable Mrs. Chalker didn’t eat her correct doses of fish as a child for there is much to wish for as regards brains in those words. It is not only a lie, but it is uninformed ignorance of the first order. I certainly hope that this is not the average quality of the UK representatives. You fail to give a date tough so I can’t judge the relevance.
That reflects the UK position perfectly. Luckily for us in the opposition (the fast track federalists that is - I am a conservative so don’t get me wrong here) that position didn’t hold through the Maastricht negotiations.
If the date is 72 or 75 this is actually the absolute truth. There were early plans for an EMU at the time and the UK entry thwarted those plans since that was one of the conditions the Council ceded to let the UK in, but nothing lasts for ever you know. If it is more recent and pertains to the EMU of current date it is also true since the UK were the ones that managed to make EMU voluntary. There is a boastful lie in there anyway, since the pamphlet takes credit for contentious things like saving the Brits from severe and nasty threats against job loss, how do these people know the future?
As for the Edward Heath Interview, what can I say… he’s not the brightest of politicians, and he damaged us federalists as much as you boys and girls on the anti-side.
I think I showed that this stement is not quite close to the reality of the matter.
I note that we are talking of events that are close to thirty years in the past and… well things change you know.
Absolutely not irrelevant. The debate on how to make our economy stronger is of much relevance and monetary policy is a huge element in it, maybe not the most exciting – personally I find it fascinating, but I am little weird that way.
Who means to do that? The great Soviet Cabal? I take it that you mean that the macroeconomic debate bores the devil out of you, or?
I’m right here and I am debating you. Posit or ask whatever you like and I’ll answer as much and as fully as I can and have time to, and you won’t find one more pro than this one. You might want to open another thread though, cause this is way off the topic you know.
Sparc
Uh, why not? (Although I still don’t quite see how this sentiment relates to the comment of “one market, many nations” anyway).
First question : the smaller (and less diverse) the area you’re looking after, the better you generally can. I know little of economics yet, so I’m sorry to say that I don’t know why it isn’t macroeconomics, although I don’t doubt you. Just seemed like it to me… an honest mistake.
Problems of nationalism:
Well, if you go extreme, but most things tend to be bad out of moderation. As for your historical point [not at all serious] depends who you’re talking about - Britain seemed to be doing fairly well to me what with the rather dislike of extremism, and yet still enough ambiton to punch above its weight. Not all of us went too far. [/not serious mode - and even admitting its a joke I still was fairly PC. Yikes, I’m getting more liberal by the day]
Not everything is black and white - federation or no federation. We have a partial union at the moment, you can call it a federation if you really want but I think it just confuses the debate rather than helps it.
And if the constitution read “We, the people, being born of different nationalities and countries but pledged to help each other in matters of common interest… ect” or similar, then it wouldn’t make the EU any closer.
It seems I need to brush up on my dictionary skills again. I’d always associated “dated” as something that was no longer suitable, but if the proper definition is “an old and still viable idea” then of course I’ve got no problem.
- A few things I noticed from your cjb reply:
To some people losing independence is very scary. I would probably put it just behind religion (/racism - I’m not blaming religion per se here, just the sepearations of people) on leading causes of war. People feel very strongly about this sort of thing.
This is possibly a tiny bit of a hijack:
You’re reminding me now of Jack Straw and Madrid’s complaints that Gilbraltor’s referendum isn’t democratic - I still struggle to see the sense in this statement. You may not think it is the best system, but if there is one thing referendums are it is democratic!
As for that being what elections are for, at the risk of boring of you by repeating arguments you’ve seen many times it’s worth repeating that elections aren’t just fought on one issue, and people can still vote for someone even if they disagree on one point. I’m reminded of the quote “The only thing more unpopular in the UK than the Euro is the Conservative party.”
“The will of the people” may be ‘wrong’, but I’d trust it any day more than the will of a random politician.
This alone is the best argument for Union in Europe that I have encountered. But does it translate across to the Euro? Is national / nationalist fiscal competition channelled into more constructive dialogue?
It’s macroeconomics all right; it’s just not an argument. A small, uniform and contained single currency economy has one set of advantages and problems, while a large, diverse and open one has another set. There is no real good or bad, easier or harder in this case, just different. In any case those are not delimitations that will satisfy an analyst in judging the health of an economy and its currency. You have to look at more factors, some of which have been previously discussed in this thread.
You might want to consider how often we successfully managed to be moderate in that respect over any length of time in the 327 year period I mentioned.
We do not have a ‘partial Union’, if you by ‘full Union’ mean a dictatorship or more moderately spoken; non-sovereign member states, then we never will have a ‘full Union’, We aim to remain a federation, which as previously shown is a set of states with certain autonomy and sovereignty that share common principles and who above their state governments share a layer of federal government with purpose to regulate and guide the federal cooperation and guaranty the rights of the citizens of the same.
Does it confuse things to call things what they are? To the contrary, it clarifies things. We are running around debating whether or not we should have a federal EU or not. Meanwhile we have a federal EU and the governments of the 15 states are whistling away and looking up at the stars as if nothing happened.
This lie inhibits transparency of the EU administration, it denies a fair debate on governance and constitutional rights in the EU and it risks to damage the Union by backfiring on the perpetrators like any lie does. All because the word federal has become synonymous with the plague for the nationalists, and because the state governments don’t have the guts, the bravado and capacity to stand up against this destructive, but populist minority.
It is understandable that the nationalists fear the federal Union since the EU aims to squeeze the living juices out of European nationalism.
Quick side note on ‘dated’ it means: outmoded, old fashioned.
You just argued for the EU, that’s nice for a change. The key word is ‘separation of people’, they need to go, disappear, be obliterated and torn down. You said religion, let’s go there for a moment.
It is 1648 the separation between peoples in central Europe being Catholicism and Protestantism has been hijacked for political reasons and we have just seen the most destructive war on the continent. In an effort to avoid that happening again we take away the guns from the religious fractions. We make state religion mandatory and we inadvertently create the nation state in the process. We thought it was religion that was the problem…we were idiots.
It is now 1945 the separation between peoples in all Europe has become nationality and this has been hijacked for political reasons and led to another cataclysm of a magnitude that this time around shook the whole globe. Finally the coin drops (all it took was somewhere towards 100 millions human lives prematurely lost on battlefields, in concentration camps and rebellions over three centuries). Says the Europeans; ‘Aha it’s not the thing, it’s what the thing makes that we must attack; it’s separation of peoples that is evil.’ You know the rest of the story, and that’s why we want to take her Majesty’s guns out of the hands of Tommy and pile them up with Marianne’s howitzers and Jerry’s pikes and pith helmets, lock them up so that we can’t use them on each other, but still keep them handy as deterrent to other fools who might jump us during our long deserved rest from murder and mayhem. That’s why we want to rob any poitical screwballs of the capacity to ride hard the emotions of any arbitrary grouping of Europens, by making sure that there is a level of common governance and equal rights between all people of the Union.
You want to turn the clock back on all that? Go ahead, just tell me first so that I have time to emigrate once and for all to the United States of America.
As for referendums,… yeah well, this is ort of another thread in and of itself. But it’s been had and dealt with a few time so I’ll answer you here. IMHO it is so that in a representative democracy referendums have the effect of obviating the basic principle of political accountability. You cannot hold the ‘public opinion’ accountable for its errors. If you try, the ‘public opinion’ reverts to “Hey? You told us it was the right thing to do all we did was vote for it. Suck off will you, you two faced lyin’, mischievous little politician!”
You shouldn’t hold the ‘public opinion’ accountable for single topic decisions, the people are pretty good at holding themselves accountable for the overall policy of their elected representatives come the next election. It saves us from the dilemma of taking hard decisions against our emotions, which we in any case tend not to. The populace is the last instance of checks and balances of the democratic system, referendums suddenly force us into the dilemma of checking and balancing ourselves, what do we do? We still try to hold the politicians accountable, who in turn go; “Your choice, your mistake Mr/s. Public Opinion!” In that way referendums are also cowardly.
The party system and elections based on the resulting programs enable a system where we vote for the principles we adhere to and the overall goals we want to achieve while accounting for the fact that you can’t always get what you want to achieve those.
Personal elections achieve the same thing by embodying those principles and goals in a personal representative who we entrust with the capacity to work towards the same.
It’s in no way perfect, but as Winston put it:
I am fairly certain, given that he was a parliamentarian of the first order that he meant representative democracy.
I think it is about time we stop running along this tangent now, so if it doesn’t have immediate baring on the Euro, you might want to reply elsewhere or start new threads.
I’ll go gather some force and see if I can still debate the Euro after all that, sheesh!
BTW glad you think so Dave Stewart 3.0, as I said I’ll see what forces I have in me for a reply re the Euro in that respect.
Sparc
As you’re getting bored, I’ll do this quickly: (I have replied to your other thread, btw)
Well, I’ve certainlly read accounts from people who would disagree with you. I’m not saying it’s valid not being an expect and all, but it’s definitely an argument.
Nobody was ‘moderate’ about anything in the majority of that time!
I fail to see your point. I presume you are saying that the USA is not a full union and that may well be the case - it is certianlly different from the situation in the EU at present.
Language changes and means different things in different situations - get over it. It’s a personal annoyance of mine that people can’t tell the difference between digital and Sky television, but I’ll still often call products that aren’t Sky Sky, just because I know what they mean and it is easier if they know what I mean. Even if you’re technically right, that has nothing to with the actual issues.
You still haven’t provided a cite for that minority quote (apart from the constitution thing, which I still maintain is a different issue) - but in the issue of keeping this short, I suggest that we drop this different issue.
See, you do understand!
Sounds like an insult to me. Glad we got that cleared up.
I was actually talking more about something less concrete than pure physical borders, but I suppose I’ll argue this point if you like:
Nations did exist before that, y’know?
Sigh…
So as I long suspected in the end you have no better reason that this. This over-simplistic, rather ironic excuse for a solution. Please explain to me the logic in this : people fight for a long time because they want the right to be free and independent, and occassionally they disagree so much that tragedies. So here’s the solution : take away their independence! That isn’t all that much different from what Hitler or Napoleon wanted.
Europe fighting a war amongst itself is the least of our problems at the moment. Why not unite Iraq and the USA? Or India and Pakistan? Great Britain, Ireland, and Northern Ireland to make everyone happy… (we really need an evil smilie here). The only time this whole “They’re fighting, what do we do? Just convert them into one” thing works is when the countries are sufficiently peaceful and tolerant of each other that it is no longer needed.
You call cultures that haven thousands of years to build up arbitary?
Have fun. I hope you enjoy being able to drive for a few hours without having to learn a new language.
While I still think you are very, very wrong and have yet to answer the same issues with this opinion suggested to you time and time again, I can’t be bothered to get into that issue right now. The issue is whether referendums are democratic or not (and I agree with you - democracy is not always the best principle).
This time I did my dictionary checking, just to be sure and:-
de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
…
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I think we’re a bit closer back actually 
- referendums are quite important to the issue of the Euro, in this country anyway.
I come back to this thread very late but if cjb is still reading, I’d like to make the following points:
Ever seen a second level politician looking for promotion ?
Technically this is correct - it didn’t change the Common Law, it subordinated it. The spin of a partial party.
Again (with the caveat of European Communities Act 1972 section 2 (2) ‘secondary legislation’ - see below) this is correct. Technically speaking.
Federation was a long way over the horizon in 1971 - it still is, IMHO.
…meaning we can withdraw at any time from the EU.
Well, Harold Wilson once said “A week is a long time in politics”. It’s been 32 years since Heath said that.
It didn’t. The Euro certainly paves the way for significant progress and the SEA was, in the broad sense, a precursor to the Euro, but; was she wrong ? Technically speaking.
Make or break time for the UK and the EU - this was signed, as I’m sure you’ll recall, by the arch pro-European Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
Your point is that the people of the UK were lied to by both politicians and the media prior to entry in 1973. And this surprises you, or you were at least deceived into thinking the Common Market (now the EU) was characterised (then) as having less import than it has assumed. I’d like to make two points:
One – In a first-past-the-post electoral system we elect politicians to make decisions for us. That’s the way it’s always worked. Most think of that system as having a practical advantage (allowing, in the particular case of Europe, politicians to make informed decisions in the long term national interest and without recourse to ill-informed and emotionally driven voters themselves fuelled by, for example, self-interested tabloid interference) but also a theoretical disadvantage: For example, Proportional Representation would represent a truer reflection of democratic opinion.
As a humble voter, I distrust all political opinion and try to form an independent judgement – that seems to be what you and your friends did in 1972/3. That none of you twigged the importance of a Referendum ("…a strange technical reason…") is a matter of regret, especially given the campaign run by the “No” lobby.
However, I’d suggest your complaint doesn’t lie with politicians but rather the system. In other words, politicians play the democratic game by the rules. If you don’t like the results (and the issues were well debated prior to the Referendum in 1972, as both your and my friends can testify), surely the answer is to campaign to change the rules (Proportional Representation) ?
Point Two – The implications for UK sovereignty were as plain as day by 1972/3. Of course, politicians paint their own perspective (as they always have done) but this document is pretty unequivocal – and dated 1972:
Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 states that:
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression ‘enforceable Community right’ and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies.
Section 2(2) provides a general power for further implementation of Community obligations by means of secondary legislation.
Section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972 states that:
The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes, subject to schedule 2 to this Act, any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament, and any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section.
Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 states that:
For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any Community instrument, shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court or any court attached thereto).
- Just how many different ways did the 1972 Act inform the public of the implications of joining the Common Market for UK sovereignty ?
I’m happy to accept that, in 1972/3, the economic arguments were accentuated (and the scale of the political project minimised) but the legal implications were there in black and white. The rest is surely a matter of personal judgement on which, IMHO, it’s not always a good idea to rely on the views of those actively campaigning for one view point whether in 1972/3 or now with Mr George W Bush, etc.
My browser does not show any reply from you. Maybe the boards ate it.
Disagreed with me on what? That simply saying that a smaller single currency economy I better is not a valid macroeconomic argument? I would very much like to see those arguments, so if you don’t mind I’d love to have a cite on that at some point.
Don’t do that, you really don’t want to go there. As regards the ‘nationalist argument’ I have opened yet another thread for your benefit and pleasure.
How did the US end up being the template for how we organize our federal government?
Something or other is amiss with what you are saying. We are trying to debate an issue of some magnitude. You want to insert value-based definitions of words? This is exactly were it is all going haywire in the overall debate. For the sake of debate accept the meaning of the words that there is consensus on, use OED or M-W, they tend to magically consistent and nuanced. Sanity my man, semantic sanity is the goal.
First of all our semantic quibble continues as it would seem. Second of all nationalist minority is not the same as a majority supporting a federation. Debate it in my other thread.
Yes, and I condemn it. Debate it in the new thread.
Again on the word dated: nationalism as a movement is dated, there is nothing insulting about it if you don’t take it that way. Terribly sorry if you feel that way, but I do not control the fashions in political philosophy. Nationalism is however having a slight comeback in Europe, which I truly am dismayed about.
Not much in the way that we conceive of them today. I can’t go through a few thousand years of history on a message board, so I recommend a short visit to the library. You might want to start with Churchill’s ‘History of the English Speaking Peoples’, it should appeal to your affinities and be less offensive than some other more recent works that will be scathing to some of your opinions.
Aside from that you just invoked Godwin and hence robbed this debate of any sanity that was left in it…
We didn’t fight to be free and independent, we fought in order to assert our supremacy over each other. Thankfully there was always a resistance to that brain-dead idea. Don’t confuse the Allied role in WWII with the grand total of conflicts that arose from nationalism.
A short list of why the EU is a good idea, beyond hindering future wars in Europe:[ol][li]It promotes cultural diversity in an inclusive rather than exclusive environment, which leads to a healthier cultural environment as base for a stabile and innovative society.[/li]
[li]It protects the smaller states of Europe from being politically hijacked in the strife for dominance.[/li]
[li]It serves as a system of checks and balances in the political climate between the states, which counters the possibility of oppressive rule to arise in a single state.[/li]
[li]It creates an independent sphere of security that frees Europe to work for world stability rather than constantly struggle with her own internal strife.[/li]
[li]It disables the other major world powers from using the European nations as chits in a potential conflict.[/li]
[li]It puts Europe on par with the US and for instance China as a large world power which contributes to world stability by ensuring non-dominance of a specific mega power.[/li]
[li]It sets an example of inclusion to the rest of the world that helps inhibit separatism and oppression in other places.[/li]
[li]It increases the individual freedom of the inhabitants of Europe by voiding national restrictions on movement and habitation.[/li]
[li]It increases individual freedom by ensuring that the right to ones cultural identity is protected with in a sphere of diversity and inclusion.[/li]
[li]It increases individual equality of all European peoples by safeguarding that no national entity is ‘more equal’ than the other.[/li]
[li]It increases regional autonomy by creating more economical, social and cultural centers in Europe so that the rural regions are less subject to dominance by a single urban sphere.[/li]
[li]It increases regional autonomy and development by freeing the member state governments to concentrate on serving the immediate needs of its constituents rather than focusing on foreign policy and inter European relations.[/li]
[li]It is morally and ethically correct to unify rather than segregate the peoples of Europe in the spirit of universalism that lays as a foundation for the rights and freedoms of peoples that we as individual states have subscribed to by ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[/ol]Happy now?[/li]
You have an over-belief in the evolutionary consistency of culture MrT. You will most surely find that what you identify as for instance ‘British’ is so vastly different from what people understood from that concept only a hundred years ago that you would be hard pressed to identify with that culture. Culture is a dynamic and ever-changing thing that is influenced by the surrounding world. It is a shifting sea of sand dunes that moves in relation to winds of change that range from violent and disturbing to mild, benign and pleasurable. Some parts of culture change slowly and resist evolution while others swing rapidly and make for a whole revolution in only a decade or so. Again I recommend some reading, the social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Erikssen’s collected works could be a good place to start.
I don’t drive; I am driven, thank you very much. My fluently spoken languages usually suffice to get me through the day in most any part of the EU.
As re referendums, read London Calling’s post if you don’t like my view, maybe that will be more to your liking.
Now, I think this thread has outlived its interest potential so I am going to stop debating in it. I have opened two threads for your enjoyment and benefit as a continuation MrT, you shall presently find me there. I have also concluded that I do not believe that the membership’s interest in the thread is sufficiently vibrant to continue the debate on the Euro, hence I withdraw and conclude that on the Euro we managed to exchange some few ideas and points and as re the EU and a federal Union,…well what can I say. It’s there and it needs to be debated, but with a much higher level of quality than what we have achieved thus far.
Sparc
As a summing up, then:-
Uh, yes… you’re right. I’m fairly sure I wrote, but the power might have accidentally got have turned off before I posted or something like that.
I’d be happy too, but I don’t think it fits into the scope of the other threads.
The moment Churchill described it as the United States of Europe, perhaps?
That’s what I’m trying to do! I’m afraid I think you’re the one being petty here, for reasons that I have explained several times before.
Uh yeah, I thought you wouldn’t like that, but there isn’t a much better example of a democratically elected group who thinks themselves enlightened above the majority and thus makes their decisions for them (no referendums) going wrong. The whole taking over Europe thing’s just a secondary.
I think you’re wrong, but this more of another thread issue.
Well, most of them were just another way of putting the peace thing… It’s another debate anyway, although I didn’t see anything I’d say was specific to EU in ability to being able to do it.
I think we have a different definition of culture… I see it as not any one particular freeze frame, but a long shifting collection of attitudes.
Yes, a lot of the opinions on issues and so forth are different today in Britain. However, I can honestly say that I can still see a clear link, and how one evolved into another.
Yes, all very interesting but it’s never been a debate about whether referendums were good or not, but whether they were democratic! Which, I suppose you agree as you haven’t argued it, they are