Interesting. Is the use of torture really just a detail? Do we want a world where people we elect - politician - can decide if torture is used?If the defence chiefs feel that they benefit from having intelligence sharing agreements then so be it. I do not see the politicians' role as meddling in detailed agreements.
Should we decide if people can be tortured for us?
Should we decide if people can be tortured for us?
On the UKIP thread, I asked if UKIP also wanted us to be independent of our links to the US. The recent relevance of this comes from the case where UK judges were accused of jeopardising the UK's intelligence sharing agreement with the US by letting it be known that evidence brought before a UK court had been obtained by US agents using what for most people amounts to torture - although maybe not for Dick Cheney. Seems to me like a good case for standing up for UK independence. However, our candidate responded:
UKIP will decide based on what is best for UK residents' liberty and safety. We will not put a relationship with another country ahead of what the public want.
We would bring in a system whereby the public can trigger a referendum on any issue by the collection of a petition of 5% of the population.
Therefore, if the public wanted us to start or stop a particular policy, they have it in their hands to do so.
We would bring in a system whereby the public can trigger a referendum on any issue by the collection of a petition of 5% of the population.
Therefore, if the public wanted us to start or stop a particular policy, they have it in their hands to do so.
If, to take an unlikely example, a UKIP government thought there was a risk that at 45 minutes notice we might be attacked by weapons of mass destruction, and therefore needed pre-emptively to attack another sovereign, independent country, how long would those who might oppose such actions have to collect the c. 3,000,000 signatures needed? Would it be possible to do this online?
Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain it properly.
We would still be able to make decisions without the need for a referendum, but if someone wanted to have a binding referendum on any issue (say smacking children) they could attempt to get 5% of the electorate to back the request for a referendum, then one would be held, and the government bound to adopt any resulting policy.
There would be a few exceptions where needed, (for example, the country deciding they want to pay no tax at all) but the day to day running of the country, in the way you ask about, would still be the job of the government.
We would still be able to make decisions without the need for a referendum, but if someone wanted to have a binding referendum on any issue (say smacking children) they could attempt to get 5% of the electorate to back the request for a referendum, then one would be held, and the government bound to adopt any resulting policy.
There would be a few exceptions where needed, (for example, the country deciding they want to pay no tax at all) but the day to day running of the country, in the way you ask about, would still be the job of the government.
so you'd have a referndum on something, and the result be a binding official thing that the government had to enforce, and make policy, if over 5% of the population sign a petition to do so, but actually only on those things that wouldn't affect the normal day to day running of the country.
you'd have a referndum on smacking children (why?!), but not on something important like paying taxes, or invading other countries.
sound to me like a fairly [bad] policy put up to look good, but actually would be pretty useless.
you'd have a referndum on smacking children (why?!), but not on something important like paying taxes, or invading other countries.
sound to me like a fairly [bad] policy put up to look good, but actually would be pretty useless.
Referenda can be called by the electorate on any subject (given a 5% petition).
The day to day management of the Country will have to be dealt with by the Civil Service and the politicans. However, it is important that major policy items are decided by the electorate rather than on the wishes of a small group of people, namely politicans.
Regarding going to war there is often not time to hold a referendum on whether to start a war (and in any case that notice will be used by the enemy to resist the troops when the war starts). However, there will be a government-led referendum to decide whether to withdraw from that war.
There was a significant groundswell of opinion to end the war with Iran which the Labour Government ignored. That would not happen with a UKIP directed Government, we would insist on a referendum to determine the future policy of that war.
The day to day management of the Country will have to be dealt with by the Civil Service and the politicans. However, it is important that major policy items are decided by the electorate rather than on the wishes of a small group of people, namely politicans.
Regarding going to war there is often not time to hold a referendum on whether to start a war (and in any case that notice will be used by the enemy to resist the troops when the war starts). However, there will be a government-led referendum to decide whether to withdraw from that war.
There was a significant groundswell of opinion to end the war with Iran which the Labour Government ignored. That would not happen with a UKIP directed Government, we would insist on a referendum to determine the future policy of that war.
UKIP declare war on Iran!? Scary!
Sorry I couldn't resist that. Assumed typos aside...
The thought of a referendum for any issue that 3 million people request seems to raise more questions than it answers. Not least how it would be administered (securely).
There would also have to be very careful consideration as to how a media storm could whip up a mob which could quickly result in a snowballing request for a referendum - probably something like Brand / Ross Sachsgate.
Sorry I couldn't resist that. Assumed typos aside...
The thought of a referendum for any issue that 3 million people request seems to raise more questions than it answers. Not least how it would be administered (securely).
There would also have to be very careful consideration as to how a media storm could whip up a mob which could quickly result in a snowballing request for a referendum - probably something like Brand / Ross Sachsgate.
Regarding referenda. UKIP is proposing a referendum system similar to that is used in Switzerland. Obviously both the petitioners and the voters would need to be on the Electoral Register. We would not use the Number 10 type petition system whereby anyone can sign several times using various aliases.
I would expect that security measures similar to (and at least as good as) those used in the forthcoming General Election would be used to both initiate the referendum and vote in it. Do not forget that the results will be binding on the Government and so it is essential that there are proper security checks.
I would expect that security measures similar to (and at least as good as) those used in the forthcoming General Election would be used to both initiate the referendum and vote in it. Do not forget that the results will be binding on the Government and so it is essential that there are proper security checks.