Evidently, 2016 was the year of populism. A good example is the Brexit referendum in which a narrow majority voted to leave the European Union. Although referendums may have many reasonable advantages in some cases, Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum. 
   It is apparent that right-wing populism played a major role in influencing people's opinion. Populist leaders such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson put forward that Britain would regain its full sovereignty by leaving the EU. It is also worth emphasizing that Farage might have convinced people to vote for leaving by claiming that Brexit would reduce the number of immigrants (Ingelhart and Norris 18). Polls suggest that many Britons generally tend to believe that Britain should restrict immigration (Bennett). Brexit was therefore undoubtedly the outcome of populist, nationalist, and biased arguments—rather than reasonable arguments. 
   Furthermore, it is quite clear that the Brexit referendum enabled uninformed people to vote on crucial issues. According to many economists, Britain benefited significantly from the European Single Market, as it provides free trade. Despite this, it seems that many people ignored these reasonable arguments and were perhaps unaware of the dire consequences. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, the Bank of England predicted that inflation will most likely rise to approximately 3% (Chu). 

Sources: 

Bennett, Asa. "Did Britain really vote Brexit to cut immigration?" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 29 June 2016. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. 

Chu, Ben. "UK inflation announcement: Bank of England forecasts record rise over Hard Brexit fears." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 3 Nov. 2016. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. 

Inglehart, Ronald F., and Pippa Norris. Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. Harvard Kennedy School, Aug. 2016. Web. 28 Dec. 2016.

The free enterprise system in the USA

The free enterprise system in the United States means that there is not a government controlled economy.

It is a system where the government attempts not to intervene in the economic processes of the country. That is to say, the Americans believe in the free forces of capital.

The share of government expenses in the gross domestic product amounts to 35 percent nowadays. In addition, the portion of taxes and social security contributions in the economic output of the United States comprises approximately 29 percent. In comparison to other countries, the U.S. has a rather low ratio of government expenditures to gross national product and an almost equally low tax and contribution ratio.

Moreover, individual branches in the U.S. economic system are regulated to a smaller extend by restrictions than it is the case in other European countries.

One of the advantages of the free enterprise system in the United States is a high degree of entrepreneurial initiative.

Furthermore, this concept allows economic innovations and developments which can be enforced very quickly.

Although this seems to be a consummate system, there are still disadvantages that one has to discuss.

The free enterprise system is mainly detrimental to the well-being of the workforce. A manpower surplus, for instance, results in extremely low wages. Also, there is a risk of unemployment as well as one of child labor.

At this point it is interesting to note that jobless Americans can only receive unemployment benefit for 26 weeks. Afterwards they have to go to the social welfare department.

Considering the disadvantages which the free enterprise system entails, this remains a controversial issue of high importance.

The free enterprise systems

 The American economy is based on the principles of capitalism and free markets, which places it into the category of a free enterprise system. The American free enterprise system finds its base in the following five main ideologies. First is the freedom of the choice of business, second is the right to own property, third is the motive of profit which is the main goal of business, the fourth is the existence of competition and last but not least, is the ideology of consumer sovereignty. This last ideology broadly means that the consumer controls the output of the producer by determining the demand and supply. 

Self-interest is the driving force behind free enterprise and the US economy. Generally, there is a separation between government and commerce and America’s economic success appears to confirm this view of a separation between these two. However, in America’s free enterprise system business is not as free to do as it pleases contrary to common appearance.  Complex mazes of regulations keep a check on businesses and determine what these are actually allowed to do.

Advantages of the free enterprise system are that it promotes freedom and choice. People are free to change careers or set up a business enterprise of any sort, without having to serve an apprenticeship or become a member of a guild. It promotes innovation, as firms need to adapt to change in demands and competition. Prices tend to be socially optimal as long as there is adequate competition in the economy.

Disadvantages ensue when the concept of supply and demand is tempered with and consumer exploitation occurs.  The principles of free enterprise allow producers to purposely withhold supply, causing consumers to pay higher prices.  As free enterprise is driven by self-interest and the profit motive, moral issues such as the exploitation of labour, detrimental environmental impacts and the use of questionable business practices can occur.

The free enterprise system

  The free enterprise system in the United States means that there is little to no governmental intervention when it comes to the commercial activities of the nation's citizen. Only a few restrictions regulate the market and the citizens business activities and ownership, the main regulator of the free market is the supply and demand relationship.

  ''From riches to rags'' is a common mentality in the USA - the free enterprise system suggest that anyone who is willing to work hard could set up their own business and be successful. This means you could pursue any type of job as long as you find a niche in the market. In reality not everyone starts out under the same conditions. Corruption and/or an influential background could influence your businesses success, as well as the increasingly tough competition.

  While it is certainly an advantage that you are able to make you own choices over the way you spend you money and thus heighten the competition between businesses, which in turn means that prices are lowered and quality is raised, it has made the market tough.

  The free enterprise system has induced massive economical growth, which means higher wages and an increased living standard, but it has also provoked the exploitation of workers to minimize production costs and the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.

 As there is no perfect economic system the free enterprise system certainly has it's downfalls, but in my opinion it is the most natural and efficient system.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement.  Referendums, although a means for citizens to vote democratically on certain issues, are a double-edged sword.  Margaret Thatcher once described referendums as “a device of dictators and demagogues”, as they tend to be a preferred means of political expediency by populists. Referendums boil down complex issues and themes to a simple “yes” or “no” vote, without providing room for compromise.  An example is the Brexit referendum, which was very badly initiated and implemented. The British public was given the choice of a “yes” or “no” vote, without even being provided with the facts to attain a basic understanding of what it means to exit the EU. The referendum merely came across as a “for” or “against” vote regarding the current government and not about the extremely complex issue of exiting the European Union, with all its procedures and potentially substantial complications.  However, I do believe referendums play an important part in democracy, but not on such complex issues, which involve the whole country and its economic future and world standing.  Referendums have their benefits on the local and also possibly on the state level of politics, but on multifaceted and consequential issues the parliamentary democracy should prevail.

Source: “Herding Cats.” The Economist 17 October <http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21673504-referendum-results-are-notoriously-unpredictable-herding-cats>.

Knowledge is Power...

Democracy is generally considered the best possible form of government, because it offers the people a voice in the government, whose decisions ultimately affect their lives. One might argue that referendums offer the ultimate form of Democracy. Referendums allow the people to be directly involved in the decision-making process. Undoubtedly this appeals to many people, especially those who feel left behind and disenfranchised by their elected representatives.

The Brexit showed the possible dangers that surround a referendum of this magnitude. The aftermath of Brexit made ripples in the water surrounding Great Britain that reached not only Europe, but was felt globally as well. As the election day neared, I believed that, while the result would be close, Britain would never leave the European Union. In my opinion, the EU is far from perfect, but it is certainly a contributing factor to the stability that has defined Europe since World War II. On election day, I was amazed by what I deemed as ignorance on the part of Brexit supporters. After the shock of the election results ebbed, the search for answers to the question, How could they?, began.

I spoke with British friends and slowly realized that the most important part of making a choice was missing from the equation—knowledge. To make an informed decision, it is imperative that one have all the necessary information available to them. It appears that in a world where information is so readily available, it would no longer be a hurdle to find and use this information. Evidently this is not true, seeing as Google reported the day after the election that the trending question of the day was, What is the EU? Some people were apparently unaware of the possible consequences that a Brexit could generate. Is it not one of the reasons why representatives are elected, to occupy themselves with the circumstances surrounding certain decisions and decide based on their in-depth knowledge and experience?  Thomas Jefferson, an American founding father, once said “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/60.html ).  This quote sums up my basic opinion on referendums. I am not generally opposed to referendums, but I believe they should not necessarily be held on a national level.  There are too many aspects and possible consequences to consider. Some questions on a local level can possibly be decided per referendum, although the government must be prepared for all possible outcomes.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided
by referendum.



The Brexit referendum ended up in a disaster. Great Britain is now forced to liquidate their membership in the European Union, which is a great loss for both sides. When a country allows the nation to decide by referendum they have to calculate such election results. In my opinion there are several reasons why Brexit proves some issues should not be decided by referendum.



Brexit shows that some countris have the assumption that big political decisions should be decided by referendum. It is obvious that this belief dropped Great Britain into a big crisis. The result destroyed Britains relationship with Europe. The kingdom split up because England and Wales voted for the Brexit, while Ireland was against it so they are now thinking about the independence from the United Kingdom to stay as a member in the Europen Union. The economy, future and relationship to other countries especially their most relevant partner Europe is uncertain. Another point is that people can easily be manipulated by press and politicians. Boris Johnson persuaded the people to vote for
the Brexit by lying and cheating to them. After the referendum he disappeared from public because he don't want to take the responsibility to be the political leader of the country.

Other countries don't see this event as a cautionary tale they follow the example and make their own referendum. Italia is the next country who decided a big political issue by referendum. This referendum also ended up in a crisis like the Brexit. Prime minister Matteo Renzi resigned from his political function. The problem is that people can't unerstand the complex relationship of Europe and what a exit can cause. The result of the Brexit vote seems to support my argument because there were comparatively few people of the younger generation who participated on the election and especially in this group the majority was against Brexit in surveys. Though Brexit is over and the nation has to deal with the results many people are now regretting it and want re-elections. Unfortunately it is too late and the country has to face the afermath.

The given reasons above prove why some issues should not be decided by referendum. In some cases a referendum may be a possibility to solve problems. But in the case of Brexit it caused serious impacts.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum

In my opinion, Britain’s EU membership was an inappropriate issue to be put to a national vote.

Obviously, Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy, which means that representatives are elected by the population, and then make important decisions for them. Parliaments function is to ensure that democratically legitimate political decisions are made in a well-informed way.

To be able to discuss such a complex topic, as the Brexit, one would need to know about the economics, politics and other important matters. But there is no reason to think even a tenth of the Britons have a basic grasp of the political knowledge needed to evaluate Brexit.

 I believe that voters might have decided differently, if they had a detailed plan for how Britain’s exit from de EU would work and what it meant to leave the EU.

Source:

http://www.governmentvs.com/en/direct-democracy-vs-parliamentary-democracy/comparison-34-52-0 [06.12.16]

 

Is Brexit proof that some issues should not be decided by referendum?

2016 was certainly a year of outrage. The changing political situation in the United States as well as Great Britain provoked heated political discussions all over the world and seems to have divided the nations. Brexit was equally as shocking to the world as it was to a large part of Britain, even though more than half of the population voted leave. 

Does the root of the problem lay within the process of deciding through referendum? 

In my opinion the problem is not the democratic approach of letting the people vote, but more so the political awareness of the population and the voter turnout. If we would start to consider certain issues to be too important and/or complex to be voted on by the population, which will actually be affected, we would undermine the concept of democracy. 

Brexit shows that not enough young people voted, which means they did not take the chance to decide over their own future. The turnout was much higher in areas with older voters who mostly voted leave, whilst the majority of the younger population voted remain. The result was, that leave won by a narrow margin and a large part of the population of the United Kingdom was in outrage. 

As far as I am concerned issues which will affect the population so directly should still be decided by referendum, but it is crucial that citizen take responsibility for their nations future, inform themselves, critically analyze the situation and actually turn up to vote. 

Does Britain have an adequate parliamentary system?

The government system in the United Kingdom differs significantly from the German. The United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland now have their own national parliaments and can clarify certain matters without the Parliament in London.

Traditionally there are two big parties in the United Kingdom, 'The Conservative Party' and the 'Labor Party'. Since 1988 there is a third important party, the 'Liberal Democrats'.

There is no proportional representation in the United Kingdom. The British electoral system is called 'first-past-the-post-system', which means that each constituent chooses a party or their representative, and the one who receives the most votes in a constituency is the 'Member of Parliament '(MP) of this district. The votes for the other candidates expire and are therefore so-called 'wasted votes'.

As I said in the beginning, the British parliamentary system differs from the German. Due to my lack of political knowledge, I haven’t got much of an opinion about either of them.  Although I did a lot of research in order to write this blog post, I came to no conclusion.

As a consequence, to be able to discuss such a complex topic, one should inform themselves more about politics.