Are referendums a good or bad idea?
We had lengthy discussions in the Lords on the issue when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was before the House. Parliament has legislated for referendums in different parts of the UK and they have been promised by political parties on different issues. The question of a referendum has loomed large in debate on the EU (Amendment) Bill.
The issue (along with why it is referendums rather than referenda) was discussed in two of my classes yesterday. A majority of students in each was against the use of referendums. Principled as well as practical objections were raised. How legitimate is it for someone to be against referendums in principle but argue for one on a particular issue: ‘Well normally I’m against referendums, but….’?
I believe that when the sovereignty of a nation is at stake or its political system is under threat of replacement, and especially when a referendum has been promised, it is essential to give the people a say. The country does not belong to the government. The government works for the people and not the other way around, or at least that is the theory to date.
A referendum should be offered when one is requested otherwise the government becomes a cruel dictatorship and steals from the people it is meant to serve.
If we want one that means the issue is important to us and that means we feel we need to have our say.
But please tell me Lord Norton, you have me on tender hooks, what is your position on referendums? And, how did contribute to the Lords’ debate when the ‘Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill’ was before the House?
D
but if all parties offered a referendum in their manifestos…
In 2003, Gordon Brown proposed the following wording for a potential referendum on the euro:
‘Should the United Kingdom adopt the euro as its currency?’
At first glance this seems to be a reasonable, unambiguous question but Alan Duncan retorted:
‘The proposed referendum question breaches Electoral Commission guidelines on fair wording. It makes no mention that the pound would be replaced if people vote ‘yes’
The above example demonstrates one of the problems cited against referendums in that the wording is crafted to suit the ambitions of a government, followed by dire warnings and references to Hitler etc.
However, the main criticism today, viz the Treaty of Lisbon, is that the government, not the public, is in control of when or if one will be held in the first place, and that it is not bound by the results.
The electorate are pawns in referendums. As mentioned elsewhere, after a 76% ‘No’ to Co Durham becoming a unitary authority, the government ignored the result.
————-
Referendums v. referenda: one to memo for a future agenda?
Britney British is spot on. Any constitutional changes should require a referendum. Without this requirement what is to stop the Government of the day abolishing our democracy all together? The Labour Government has just voted to give away powers to the EU, despite a manifesto pledge to have a referendum and comes up with the daft argument that this treaty is not the same as the constitution when the it obviously is to anyone who can read (including the lead author Giscard d’Estaing). Now we have the Government discussing changing the voting system without a referendum.
I must admit that I’ve been absolutely stunned at the way the Labour and Lib Dems have ignored their manifesto pledges over the EU Referendum and pretended that the Lisbon Treaty is somehow different from the EU Constitution. How can I possibly be expected to vote for either party again when I’ve been lied to and treated like an idiot in such a blatant way?
Oh and there’s a minor configuration problem with your RSS feed, which is showing up as
Referendums
from (title unknown) by lordnorton
instead of
Referendums
from (Lord of the Blog) by lordnorton
David: Clearly my cunning plan to get people rushing to check the debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill eight years ago – in which I certainly did take part – is not working out as intended. I thought I would wait to gather a few more opinions from contributors before coming in with my own views.
Lord Norton: If you’d linked to the debate I’m sure you’d have got the desired result.
The problem is that a search of the Parliament website for your name and the name of the Bill in the year 2000 produces 64 results – and unless you are already a political geek, it is unlikely that you will know where to look.
A bit of luck and deduction helped me identify your Second Reading contribution and an amendment on referendums in Committee, but you may have discussed it on other occasions as well.
As to my views, if you’re interested, I think holding referendums causes tension between our representative system and notions of direct democracy. There is no reason, with the pervasiveness of technology and media, that we could not offer the public a vote on absolutely every decision – we could ressurect the pure democracy of ancient Anthens.
Where would that leave our elected (and indeed unelected) representatives? Well out of a job. But more importantly, would it be desirable? Probably not. We need dedicated representatives, with time and hopefully expertise, scrutinising the decisions that affect the country. The public are not in a position to make an informed decision about the details of legislation, because they have neither that time or expertise. It would also lead to a deeply worrying ‘tyrrany of the majority’ in its most pure sense.
That said, there is certainly a case for giving the people a say on big issues that affect the future of our country – changing our constitutional arrangements, for example. The proviso for a referendum has to be that the question can be fairly framed, and that the issue can be properly explained to the public so that they can make an informed decision. They should be used sparingly.
Whether one considers the EU Treaty to be an issue of sufficient magnitude for a referendum is something I will leave for another time, as this comment has gone on far too long already!
I am now going to read your contributions to the 2000 debate to see whether we agree!
Lord Norton,
Is changing the political system within a term or terms of office, with no public referendum provided, entirely legal? Can a British government legally change the system from a democratic one to a more communist style one?
How can the British people ensure the system remains democratic if their only power is that which is exerted once every four years? What if all parties’ policies were headed towards communism and away from democracy?
Is there nothing in our constitution which states the British people are legally entitled to demand a democratic system no matter what each government in power desires? If there is not, the British public are powerless and at the sole mercy of the parties’ aspirations.
Chris H – you want referendums when there is a change to the constitution, but how do you determine this? The lack of a written constitution means that it is arbitrary, which is why successive governments (Thatcher and the Single European Act, Major and Maastricht, Blair/Brown & Lisbon Treaty) chose not to hold referendums, presenting them as ammending treaties that in their opinion did not significantly impact upon the unwritten constitution that we have…
Britney British – surely anti-democratic does not always equate to communism???
Matt:
It’s my understanding that, because of a lack of information and scrutiny, some MPs and Lords feel insufficiently qualified in relation to the Lisbon Treaty so, while I’m inclined to agree with you, I feel your argument falls down here.
James, in terms of the EU, anti-democratic may well mean communism. It’s been heading that way since the 50s in a stealth-like manner. It’s creeping towards us and most of us don’t know it or don’t want to know it.
We call ourselves a free and democratic society yet most of our laws are made by unelected people and quangos, and Britain is, along with the USA, the least private country on earth. CCTV cameras, identity cards soon to come and even microchips being tested…in Norway I seem to remember. We now have our own version of Homeland Security. Do you think that is to protect us against a dirty Islamic bomb or to control us when we get out of order?
Do you not think maybe the Islamic threat has been taken advantage of so that curtailments to our freedoms can be passed more easily? ‘Oh please sir, give me an identity card and a microchip! We must defend ourselves against the terrorist threat!’ I’m certainly not saying there is no terrorist threat or problem with muslim immigration but I think there is a chance the threat is of benefit to the goals of the EU. You know that Pearl Harbour was staged don’t you? It’s the same thing. Create or make use of a threat in order to make the public accept what it is you want to do.
Look up the name Julia Middleton and read her Wiki info. She heads Common Purpose, a supposed training organisation which some believe is aligned with the EU and created to pluck out of society people who will become the EU leaders of the future, taking control of the British EU regions. I updated her info on Wiki as it missed out a few facts, mainly that she was the editor of Marxist Today, the journal of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It also missed out the fact she is still involved in DEMOS, a think tank founded by the journalists of Marxist Today. It remained factually correct for a while but it’s been reverted to the pleb-friendly version.
Do you believe it’s impossible for a democratic system to be gradually turned into a communist one? These things don’t happen overnight. People wouldn’t allow it. They happen so slowly that most people don’t realise what’s happening. Each new generation is less in touch with the real democratic system and is therefore less able to notice the change. In two or three generations, the change is complete.
I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just saying it’s a possibility which we should be watchful of if we value democracy. It’s all Star Wars really.
Here is an analysis of Julia Middleton’s Book, Beyond Authority…
http://www.eutruth.org.uk/cp.htm
ukliberty – I agree with you that MPs and Peers on occasion do not feel they are qualified to provide the detailed scrutiny of legislation they would wish to. If a significant proportion of our representatives are in this position then it is a problem for Parliament and something that needs to be dealt with when it arises (with greater support in some form), but I don’t think it makes the case for referendums stronger.
Indeed, if there are issues that large numbers of MPs and Peers feel insufficiently qualified to deal with due to complexity, I believe that absolutely rules out offering the people a referendum – the public as a whole cannot possibly be in a better position to make that decision. Some of the public, maybe – the whole of the public, no.
I am in agreement with ‘Britney British.’ When the people want a referendum on issues that threaten anything big especially the core ideas and the constitution of the UK (Europe) It should be an automatic ask the people situation, I can see the clear reasons against having them regularly, voter fatigue and what is the point of electing people if they get the people to decide, but I feel it is imperative that issues effecting the sovereignty of this country it should be decided on by the people who it will effect.
Oliver – with no written constitution, how do you define what should be subject to a referendum?
Brtiney, Anything is in theory possible – but I believe that it is highly improbable that there is a Communist take over of democracy going on at present. Such takeovers when thay have happened in the past have tended to be exceptionally dramatic such as happened in Czechoslovakia in the 1940s, though it is worth noting that the Communinist party was part of the government at the time anyway having won the preceeding general election.
For the EU to be a Communist plot relies on them undertaking tactics in the 1950s which are at complete variance with what they followed. Given that there are trenchent criticisms of the EU from the left in this country and Europe about the free-trade nature of the EU it again seems unlikely.
The point I was trying to make before I got distracted by conspiracy theories is why does anti-democracy equate to Communisim? The abolition of the GLC in the 1980s could be argued to be anti-democratic yet was instigated by the Conservatives.
Just because someone has a leftist persuasion doesn’t guarantee they will be pro-EU, if they also believe the EU is communism in democracy’s clothing. If they are not part of the EU’s select pack, and can possibly see they will be redundant at some point in the future, they will be a bit reticent. No-one likes to be side-lined and your worst enemy could at one point have been your best ally.
Lord Norton, how can you say “with no written constitution” when in fact you know our constitution IS written?
Do you remember the big debate on the constitution in the House a while ago? I caught only part of the recording. I have never seen the house so full. It was bursting to the seams. Obviously everybody wanted to say what they thought our constitution was and represented. Can you paraphrase what you said?
Given the heavyweights speaking and the memorable moments I was still left confused by what our constitution is. So I tried to make sense of it in my own way.
Our written constitution concerns itself with boundaries of behaviour between the Crown, Nobility and Parliament. Its instruments have been created reactively whenever either of the latter have behaved badly or when essential immunities where required.
Ordinary people don’t feature much in it because for most of our history they were in a master servant relationship with the nobility who took responsibility for them. So in this respect we don’t have a written constitution.
However, in its place we have unprescribed infinite freedoms and to prevent chaos we constrain these freedoms by the use of Common Law. The gap between freedom and law is called Civil Liberty.
Even then Civil Liberties were a recipe for chaos so the nobility created the concept of chivalry and honour. Its model acted to constrain bad behaviour on a voluntary basis. The Georgians put another novel invention into place called manners.
This model also acted to constrain bad behaviour and for the first time allowed commoners to engage in polite conversation with the nobility and upper classes. Goodness only knows what went on before this? A clue though can be found in the profanities that still exist today.
So our constitution or lack of it as some would say is nothing more than a notion of honour, chivalry, good manners and even-handedness or to put it another way, respect for others.
Its something both the ignorant and the enlightened can aspire to and is why we have the best system of governance in the world because we are truly free and ‘so well mannered’.
Written constitutions by contrast define their freedoms. By doing this they constrain freedom itself and cause ambiguity. For example, the notion of a right to happiness, its all very-well when you are happy but when you are not, the constitutional position is you should be and government should make it so. This is unreasonable and unfair but nevertheless it is still a Human Right.
Our constitution does not prescribe a right to happiness but leaves it to the individual. When they are unhappy its up to them to remedy this by whatever means are available to them. This is fair and reasonable but not always legal.
Senex: it was not me who said we do not have a written constitution. It is certainly not ‘unwritten’ – much exists in statute form, but statutes comprise only one of the four principal sources of our constitution; hence, it is equally misleading to describe it as ‘written’. What we have is a constitution that is not codified. This has various advantages but the reason for its strength, which is what you essentially address, is the political culture of this country.
I’m delighted to see that my post has generated a lively debate among contributors. I’ll offer my own thoughts presently, either as a comment here or in a substantive post.
Lord Norton you said:
“It was not me who said we do not have a written constitution.”
I smiled to myself when I read this because of what Lord Tyler said in his blog:
http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/fraud/#comments
about ‘Parliamentary Privilege’.
Blogs work on the principle of repudiation and anonymity so if something got by the process of mediation and became legal both would kick in to protect the blogger. But would it protect the mediator?
On the subject of referendums: for a generation now voters have given Commons mandates to our two principle political parties (in alphabetical order), Labour and the Tories.
Both have enjoyed large majorities on the first past the post system. For the opposition parties, to use an oxymoron, its been like living under a democratic dictatorship. Even PR in principle could have returned large majorities.
Voters are disillusioned not knowing where to turn and personally I regret that parties have had to compromise their core beliefs. What has made it worse is the recent ruling on manifestos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233175.stm
and that a political party is not legally bound to enact promises made in its manifesto. It is not the subject of the action that should be of concern but the fact that a political party can come to power and do something that it promised the electorate it would not do. Herein lay the roots of extremism.
The constitutional should address what is happening now especially when it is acknowledged by all that large majorities are bad for democracy. The role of referendums would seem to have a place in our democracy and there should be some mechanism where the people can bypass the Commons to force a referendum.
Senex: I agree you have identified a problem in terms of the need for a greater connection between citizens and Parliament (and between Parliament and citizens), but it does not follow that referendums are either the best or even an appropriate solution to the problem. They do not address the need for a greater connection on a continuing basis. They are one-off events which, as analysis of all national referendums held in the history of the world shows, do not usually attract a greater turnout than for elections of candidates to public office.