I'm not sure that I do, actually. I have a general problem with referendums, in that I feel that before any other referendum is called there should be a Referendums Act, that automatically triggers referendums in particular circumstances. That referendums should be called or not be called for political expedience, to me, appears abhorrent.
The referendum bit of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is a case in point. If the creation of the National Assembly was a sufficient constitutional change to merit a referendum, then the Government of Wales Act 2006 that gave the Assembly law-making powers for the first time should also have been the subject of a referendum, but it wasn't.
Under the present Act, Wales could become virtually independent by judicious use of LCO's without ever needing to call upon the referendum clause of the Act!
The Government of Wales Act 2006 says that we must have a referendum, not to give the Assembly extra powers, but merely to change the administrative way in which the extra powers it was given, without plebiscite, are exercised - which seems a bit silly to me.
This exemplifies the problem of referendums. Constitutional institutions change gradually. The EU that Britain is a member of today is not the EEC that we voted to join in 1976, there is no doubt that huge changes have happened in the last 30 years. If we didn't vote on other occasions when things changed there is no moral, historical or traditional reason for saying we must vote on the current proposed changes.
It appears to me that we have two choices, either we trust our elected representatives to legislate as they see fit without the need for further referendums - on any subject - ever, or we have a law that says that these changes must be decided by referendum whether it is convenient to our elected representatives to hold a referendum or not. The idea that referendums should be held on an ad-hoc basis for political convenience is just illogical.
Sorry, what was meant to be a link posting has turned into a sermon :-(
I want a referendum can be found here. Enjoy!
"It appears to me that we have two choices, either we trust our elected representatives to legislate as they see fit without the need for further referendums - on any subject - ever, or we have a law that says that these changes must be decided by referendum whether it is convenient to our elected representatives to hold a referendum or not."
ReplyDeleteSo ask yourself.. do YOU trust your elected representative to represent your views?
I don't hink it comes down to simply two choices. And I don't even think it's simply a matter of "choice" either. There are certain times when the issue involved is just too constitutionaly important to leave to one current batch of MP's. The proposed Constitutional treaty is a case in point.
As you mentioned, the Europe we joined over 30 years ago is an entirely different beast to the one we find ourselves shackled to today. And the very fact that we haven't had a national referendum on the previous treaties is surely democratic reason enough to hold one now? Consistently, polls show that the British public are overwhelmingly opposed to further EU integration, and a great deal of them would go even further and demand back powers from Brussels which the EU has no right or reason to hold.
I'm not advocating referendums on every political issue under the sun, but how will it hurt to guage the opinion of the people over a subject which is so important?
If the current proposals are good for Britain, then let the government argue its case in a proper national debate and let the people themselves decide. It's time.
JO
At some point there has to be an international debate, i.e. a debate among the nations of Britain on the way forward for the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe present set-up, with all its anomalies and contradictions, is not tenable.
You are right. I believe that it is right that we are allowed citizens initiatives like they have in Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteThe government is far too powerful and they should be legislating far less than they do now.
"The government is far too powerful and they should be legislating far less than they do now."
ReplyDeleteIts not our government which overlegislates. Its the EU! Over 80% of all our laws originated in Brussels.
Sorry to butt in, isn't it a matter of issues that decide the overall rules for us as a political community that we ourselves should decide? We have a growing discussion of this in OurKingdom with OpenEurope and John Palmer arguing the toss, especially interesting is the post from Bill Emmott, who was a great editor of the Economist, for a principled referendum and for Europe.
ReplyDeleteI'm not too sure that I understand what your saying here. Obviously if the change to the British Constitution is external, from the EU, NATO etcetera then that could trigger an automatic referendum.
ReplyDeleteBut when the matter is internal, such as giving more powers to the nations, then there is no automatic power, because the bill that needs a referendum will be delayed until it is expedient for the political classes to present it.
I agree with one point you make, about the referendum in the GWA 2006 enabling Wales to get quite a lot of powers (I doubt if its as high as 95%). The interesting thing about the GWA is that there are no limitations on areas that Wales can ask for power over, there are no "reserved issues" other than ones that would cause increased expenditure to the UK treasury. So Wales can, whereas Scotland cannot, under the present system, gain powers over things like Social Security payment levels, control of the armed forces even, if Westminster agrees to grant an LCO in these areas.
Once a referendum is called and won, only the things that have been granted before the referendum will be under the Assembly's control - so a referendum later rather than sooner is better for the Welsh nationalist cause and a referendum held before too many LCO's are passed is best for the anti-devoloutionists. A strange state of affairs!