In China we are currently in the Year of the Dragon (EDIT – actually, it is the Year of the Tiger)Â until February at least, when it becomes the Year of the Rabbit which is (no longer) appropriate, since I’m going to talk about Wales, whose symbol is Y Ddraig Goch (It was a good idea when it worked – honest). Â But in Wales, this year will not be the year of the dragon, tiger or the rabbit: it will be, in pure geekery terms, the Year of the Referendum(s).
Alongside the excitement that is the AV Referendum(!), the Welsh public will also get the opportunity to vote in a referendum to extend the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. Â Or rather, they will get a chance to vote to confirm the extension of powers of the NAfW, since those powers were already granted to the Assembly, but only through a system whereby they had to ask for each power individually, and the granting of all primary legislative powers in one go had to be verified by referendum as stipulated in the Government of Wales Act 2006… you know what, it is fairly complex – if you are incredibly interested, in the process, have a read of the Electoral Commission stuff on it. Â Or ask someone from Wales, who may or may not be able to help you.
Anyway, so in Wales they have two referendums in a little over two months, while the rest of us have one in May. Â Which brings me to my point – in a representative democracy, when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?
Apparently, I wasn’t the only one asking this. Â The House of Lords convened a Select Committee on the Constitution to investigate “the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience” and produced a report (12th Report of Session 2009-10 entitled “Referendums in the UK”, pdf here). Â In it, they listed the 9 large-scale referendums constituting the “modern history of referendums in the UK”:
1973 – NI Sovereignty
1975 – EEC Membership
1979 – Scottish devolution
1979 – Welsh devolution
1997 – Scottish devolution
1997 – Welsh devolution
1998 – Devolution for London
1998 – Good Friday Agreement
2004 – North-East Devolution
As you can see from the list above, prior to Labour winning power in 1997, there had been only 4 referendums, while the subject of each referendum (with the exception of the Good-Friday Agreement, though you can make a case for it as well) is related to the constitutional future of the UK or a component part thereof.
The House of Lords Select Committee weighed the evidence for and against referendums:
For:
- Enhances the democratic process
- Difficult to reverse if public support
- Can “settle” an issue
- Can be a “protective device” (safeguard against controversy)
- Promotes voter education
- Enhances citizen engagement
- Popular with voters
- Complements representative democracy
Against:
- It is a “tactical device”
- Dominated by elite groups
- Have a damaging effect on minority groups
- It is a “conservative device” (block on progress)
- Do not “settle” an issue
- Over-simplify issues
- Tend not to be about issue in question
- Costly
- Undermine representative democracy
Given the balance of evidence the Committee took from experts in the field, academics, constitutional lawyers from across the world and experienced referendum actors, they concluded that there are “significant drawbacks to the use of referendums” and particularly regrettable was “the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”
However, they relented slightly by stating that “if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”. Â They provided several examples, two of which are relevant to this post: a referendum to change the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.
So, we’re having one of those (the changing the electoral system one, in case you’ve missed it) but we’ve been denied the latter by a) unionist parties not letting the Scottish Government have a referendum or b) the SNP being too scared to bring forward their bill (depending what side of the fence you are sitting on). Â In Wales, they’ll have a referendum (which was part of the amendment to devolution that was the Government of Wales Act 2006) in order to amend devolution further (and I’ll probably write more about that nearer the time) so that fits with the using referendums in relation to “fundamental constitutional issues” idea.
I guess my point is this. Â A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession. Â Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite. Â Though the report itself was only advisory, and conducted under the previous government, so perhaps not. Â For constitutional geeks like me (and, if you have gotten this far in the post, probably you too) the report is worth a read.
#1 by Alec Macph on January 24, 2011 - 12:33 pm
I covered the inherent danger in trusting any political project to Seionyst Wales. We must all be alert to the threat from the Protocols of the Elders of Capel Seion.
~alec
#2 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 12:38 pm
I don’t really understand… but okay.
#3 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 12:42 pm
Ah right. Welsh politicians destroy parties while Scottish politicians build them up. I see. Yes. Well – there’s plenty truth in that, lots of evidence. But in this case, most of the top politicians (all the NAW ones anyway) agree on a Yes vote. So yes – if your theory holds – there may be trouble ahead!
#4 by Alec Macph on January 24, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Oh, don’t get me started on Scotland!
{/misanthrophy}
#5 by Douglas McLellan on January 24, 2011 - 12:40 pm
Thanks for this article. I had no idea of the report and it is now in my to-read pile.
I also think that there should be an independence referendum and I cant see why my party (Lib Dems) wont let it happen.
I think that the report basically answers your question “when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?” clearly by stating that it is a tactical device. Comparatively few in Scotland wanted the referendum (they just wanted devolution) but Labour had to put it in the manifesto to appease people (including its own members) in England.
I actually think there should be more referendums (akin to the Swiss model) as I think more people would become interested in democracy. Although we do elect people to make decisions for us it is clear that the reaction to the Coalition Government (including the ludicrous ‘no mandate’ accusation) means that some people are not ever going to be happy with regular elections and democratic outcomes.
#6 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 12:47 pm
I agree with some of what you say Douglas. Referendums in the UK have been predominantly tactical devices – as you say, Labour used referendums to appease their own membership for devolution (1979 & 1997) and for the Government of Wales Act (2006 – referendum this year).
I’m not convinced there should be more referendums. The Swiss model is hugely different – any individual can spark a referendum on an issue, but you must get 100,000 signatures to have it. And they do have loads. But I’m of the opinion that we elect politicians to make our decisions for us – and, in a lot of cases, that is simply putting an X in a box next to a party that generations of the same family have voted for – so let them make the decisions they are there to make. Exceptions though, in cases – as the Lords Report suggests – of constitutional change.
#7 by Douglas McLellan on January 24, 2011 - 1:00 pm
I think because there is a general lack of engagement in politics (like you said – a X against a candidate without any real thought) and often anger at the resulting democratic result I think referndums could be the way to do. Think about where our politics would be if we had referendums on the issues that are currently stalling at various points in our parliaments.
EU Membership – lets just deal with that issue please.
Scottish & Welsh Independence – would settle the issue for a generation or more.
Electoral Reform (including Lords reform).
English Parliament & West Lothian Question.
Looking at some of the recent Swiss referendums we could also vote on things like a Land Value Tax.
#8 by Alec Macph on January 24, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Rightly or wrongly, the voter-base in England (and, I do mean England more than Scotland or Wales) is far less socially/ethnically homogenous than in Switzerland, or at least outwith places like cosmopolitan Geneva.
You and I might not think in terms of bloc votes, but others do… not least in the case of the subversion of the Tower Hamlets mayoral election which had a pitifully low turn-out.
#9 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Surely we have referendums on matters which transcend party politics? I always thought that was the reason for referendums.
#10 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Well… look at the list of UK referendums. None of them particularly “transcend” party politics, except perhaps the Good Friday Agreement (and even then, it transcends GB party politics but not NI party politics). The rest have had pretty clear divisions along party lines (though, admittedly, some parties join together to support a campaign, a la 1997 referendums).
I take your point though – if you look abroad (Ireland, for example) issues like divorce and abortion have been the subject of referendums, and those issues do transcend party politics.
#11 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 1:23 pm
Actually I think most of them do transcend party politics. You can’t assume that everyone who voted Labour supported devolution for example, or that everyone who voted Tory was against it.
#12 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 1:35 pm
No, of course not. But parties take a side – and some of the, ahem, unthinking elements of parties blindly support their party position on an issue without considering the issue itself. On the flip side of that, there are very few issues which parties will not, for want of a better phrase, hijack, for political purpose. Thus I’m not convinced any issue really falls into the category of “transcending” party politics.
#13 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 2:44 pm
No they don’t – in 79 the parties were split. And in 97 there were more splits than most people were aware of at the time. In my area Labour did very little around the referendum – the SNP and Lib Dems did a lot of the work jointly to deliver a Labour policy/ That simply could not happen in the context of a parliamentary election.
#14 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 2:59 pm
But whether the parties are united or not, the issue is still partisan. If you are going to argue that independence transcends parties because parties themselves are divided on the issue, then EVERY issue transcends party politics, because no party wholly agrees on anything.
Incidentally, I said nothing about activists. I said the central party – I even put it in capitals so you’d see it! My point was that PARTIES take a side on the debate – in 1997, whether activists were in favour or not, Labour as a party were in favour. It was their policy after all. So I don’t see how that can be above party when one party is proposing it!
But I agree – parties can only work together in the context of a referendum – its why Wales decided NOT to have the referendum on the same date as the NAW election.
#15 by Colin on January 26, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Surely by that logic, everything transcends party politics. No party will have a single policy which all of their voters support.
#16 by Douglas McLellan on January 24, 2011 - 1:03 pm
I think that it would be hard to find any issue that totally transcends party politics. Given that parties have differing positions on social values as well as economic beliefs topics that have been the subject of referendums in other countries like Switzerland have always had a political party backing them.
#17 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 1:24 pm
Independence is a really obvious one.
Or do you believe that all SNP voters are in favour of independence and everyone who votes for a unionist party is against it?
You would be quite wrong if you did!
#18 by Jeff on January 24, 2011 - 1:29 pm
I’m not convinced by that particular example Indy. With the SNP ‘stuck’ on ~30% in Holyrood polls and on ~30% in independence polls, I think it’s fair to say there is a strong link between those who support independence and those who support SNP, even if that doesn’t apply to every last man, woman or child.
I can’t imagine a referendum on joining the Euro would be split down party lines too much so I’m with you on the general thrust that referendums transcend party politics.
#19 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 1:39 pm
No, of course SNP voters are not equal to “supporters of independence” just as “unionist voters” are not equal to “anti-independence”. Predominantly yes, but not 100% correlation.
My point wasn’t that an issue in a referendum would divide along party lines (which, I assume, would be your definition of being a partisan issue?) but that parties themselves would take a position. I don’t think you can say “independence” is an issue which transcends party politics at all – with the SNP/Greens/SSP in favour and Labour/Tories/Lib Dems are CENTRAL party level opposed, it makes it squarely a partisan issue in my book.
#20 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 2:47 pm
The corollary to that is that if the SNP achieved more than 50 per cent of the vote at an election we could just declare independence.
I think everyone knows that it wouldn’t be as simple as that and would have to involve a referendum.
#21 by Douglas McLellan on January 24, 2011 - 2:25 pm
No I dont believe that. The AV referendum is showing the difference between a party position and how its members will campaign.
However, in an independence referendum the Tories would have a party political position – being a unionist party. And I am guessing the SNP would also have a party political position.
#22 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 3:35 pm
Yes but that is kind of my point! This is to Malc too.
Parties don’t own their voters. I know people who vote SNP who would vote against independence and I know people who vote Tory who would vote in favour of it.
There are issues which transcend party politics. Independence/devolution is one. The EU is another. The monarchy would be another example. They should be settled by referendums because a) the parties don’t necessarily agree internally, 2) the voters don’t necessarily agree with the party they usually vote for and 3) the issue is large enough for people to have a right to have a direct say. That’s why I don’t, for example, agree with having a referendum on AV. It is too small an issue to warrant the bother or the expense.
#23 by Malc on January 24, 2011 - 3:50 pm
I absolutely agree that parties don’t own their voters. Of course they don’t. And I see your point, I just don’t agree that because people vote for a party and disagree with that party’s stance on an issue (eg – anti-independence SNP voter) that it means the issue transcends party politics. But then I’d be defining it differently – because we’re coming at this from different positions.
AV is a change to the electoral system, which is a significant change (though you can argue about the how much AV will actually change the outcome of elections) to the constitutional arrangements of the UK, therefore by my reckoning it should go to a referendum. And I think the examples you give should be given to referendums too – monarchy, independence, euro, EU… but my reasoning is more in line with the House of Lords committee than yours!
#24 by Indy on January 24, 2011 - 4:47 pm
In a practical sense it does. We elect MPs/MSPs to take decisions on our behalf and we ourselves, as voters, make the decision who to elect on the basis of what their party stands for. Obviously you are never going to get an exact correlation between what the candidate for X Y or Z party believes on issues which are important to us and which will decide our vote. But generally speaking the system works well enough (obviously there will be some LibDem voters who disagree but that’s another story!)
There are issues, however, which don’t fit into that system and where people are entitled to a direct say. That’s what I mean by transcending party politics,
#25 by Alec Macph on January 24, 2011 - 1:05 pm
One reason that the local Labour Party didn’t push for a referendum on directly elected mayors in Birmingham is said to be that they were worried than Carl Chinn would run as an independent and win.
~alec
#26 by Father MacKenzie on January 25, 2011 - 1:33 am
It would be remiss of me not to point out that it is actually the year of the Tiger, it’ll be Rabbit after February then Dragon the year after that. They made a big mural of a tiger that I see every day I cross the Clyde on the Jamaica street Bridge when it changed over last year.
#27 by Malc on January 25, 2011 - 9:33 am
Yeah… thanks for that. I misread whatever website I was reading it from… will amend.
#28 by Scott on January 25, 2011 - 10:51 am
You would be disappointed with me if I didn’t raise an eyebrow at this:
“A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession. Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite. ”
The legal issue is such that the Scottish Parliament may not get to pass a bill – given the presiding officer has to indicate whether or not a bill is within competence. The competence arguments were debated by LPW and myself in blog posts last year.
On challenge to the bill if the bill is allowed into the Parliament (which is arguable) and then passed any private citizen can challenge – seeking an interdict to prevent its operation and asking for the bill to be struck down. A challenge need not come from the Advocate General on behalf of the UK government.
The political issue is different of course, and pressure at Holyrood may justify a Westminster legislated referendum (albeit that Cameron – again last week in PMQ – seems to think that the matter is not one for Westminster, although that merely demonstrates the ongoing constitutional illiteracy of a party that believes it can somehow depart from the European Convention on Human Rights) – but that takes control of the question out of the hands of those advocating the reform. In any referendum the wording of the question is important – but that is a debate for a different day.
#29 by Malc on January 25, 2011 - 11:21 am
I did think that might get you interested in the debate. And of course you are right. I think my point was your last paragraph – that if there was political support at Holyrood to pass a bill (though whether it would pass the PO’s office is questionable) then, by the UK Parliament’s logic, they should hold it. But yes – I appreciate the legal difficulties – and I remember well the legal discussion last year!
#30 by Neil Craig on January 25, 2011 - 1:07 pm
On the arguments against:
It is a “tactical device†– like government’s decision not to ask us isn’t a tactical device? In any case this is obviated if there are laws saying when we may trigger a referendum.
Dominated by elite groups -Well by definition no. Anybody think Parliament isn’t dominated by elites (at least in their own opinion)?
Have a damaging effect on minority groups – Fair if referenda were to be allowed to increase state power. I would prefer them to be restricted to constitutional issues or rolling back state power. Otherwise it would be possible to produce laws demonising Jews or bankers. However, Parliaments have at least an equal likelihood of this.
It is a “conservative device†(block on progress) – only if your definition of “progress” is unpopular.
Do not “settle†an issue – come far closer to doing so than Parliamentary majorities can.
Over-simplify issues – Quite the opposite if real debate is allowed. Does anybody think our last Parliamentary election saw serious issues properly debated. I admit the current refusal of the anti-AV group, chaired by Margaret Beckett, to engage in a poblic debate, does somewhat limit it.
Tend not to be about issue in question – tend to be far moreso than elections are.
Costly – bolleaux. At about £12 million a referendum is hardly comparable to the amount wasted on Parliament buildings & useless bridges. Breat to see parliamentarians, just for once, concerned about money.
Undermine representative democracy – undermines the monopoly of power held by the “representative” numptocracy but that is different from democracy.
#31 by Malc on January 25, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Bearing in mind I was quoting the House of Lords report, which in turn was quoting expert evidence given to them. I never said they were not controversial – but I can see why they can be criticised in each of the above ways. All they (and I, I guess) are saying is that referendums are not be any stretch a perfect way of reaching decisions.
#32 by Neil Craig on January 26, 2011 - 4:18 pm
As Churchill said of democracy – “the worst method apart from all the others”