I agree with Tony Benn, that no government has the right to hand over powers without consulting the people.
On something this fundamental to the nature of democracy, it is the only right thing to do.
But I do not think we are handing over powers. We are sharing powers with a our fellow 26 member states.
It is a delegation, a dilution of democracy. A 1/27th influence on matters that concern Britain compared to a 100% influence where parliament is sovereign is something I think the British people should have been consulted on.
A trading agreement was the subject of the '75 referendum, not political union.
Why is the somewhat remote matter of EU membership up for a referendum then, and not the much more immediate NHS/benefits changes?
Why have one at all?
Because the EU referendum has constitutional consequences - benefit and NHS changes do not.
The UK does not have a written constituion. So exactly what consequences are these ?
One of the great fallacies - our constitution is not in one document and is not entirely written either but we do have one - the most relevant part being the supremacy of Parliament - which has not been entirely true since 1973 - all legislation has to comply with the requirements of the EU, so while Parliament does indeed pass legislation - that legislation must comply with the rules passed by the EU.
Referenda should really only be used for changes in the way we are ruled. The NHS, as much as it is admired, is not about governing.
I don't see why that should be the case, just because it has been so in the past. In particular, modern technology makes it a lot more practicable and far less costly to have regular referenda on wide range of key issues.
The only major hurdle, as far as I can see, is the political elite who don't want to give up some of their power.
I don't see why that should be the case, just because it has been so in the past. In particular, modern technology makes it a lot more practicable and far less costly to have regular referenda on wide range of key issues.
The only major hurdle, as far as I can see, is the political elite who don't want to give up some of their power.
The fact that we don't get many referenda, even on matters that some would argue affect our constitution/sovereignty, would be a good indication that this is the case.
The fact that we don't get many referenda, even on matters that some would argue affect our constitution/sovereignty, would be a good indication that this is the case.
Governments holds referendums on issues they want and expect a vote that agrees with them and they rarely ever deviate from that unless they have no choice.
The fact that we don't get many referenda, even on matters that some would argue affect our constitution/sovereignty, would be a good indication that this is the case.
no it wouldn't.
You have identified a fact. that we don't have many referenda. and used to to reach an entirely unsupported conclusion.
there is no link between the two. any of the other possible explanations is supported equally by your evidence.
Governments holds referendums on issues they want and expect a vote that agrees with them and they rarely ever deviate from that unless they have no choice.
there is truth in that.
although there are many exceptions. the AV referendum, scottish independence(?), the upcoming EU referendum? all seem likely to be lost by the proposer.
but it's quite a cynical interpretation. you could equally well propose that that governments don't peruse policies, let alone seek a mandate for things that are unpopular. why would they.
although there are many exceptions. the AV referendum, scottish independence(?), the upcoming EU referendum? all seem likely to be lost by the proposer.
but it's quite a cynical interpretation. you could equally well propose that that governments don't peruse policies, let alone seek a mandate for things that are unpopular. why would they.
The AV referendum was forced on the Tories as part of the coalition agreement. The Scottish referendum is SNP policy and is their raison d'être. I'll only believe we will ever get a referendum on the EU when the ballot paper drops through my letterbox.
Governments have been implementing policies they had no mandate for since God was in short trousers and those that aren't popular they keep under the radar like the one Mandelson admitted to on immigration..
UKIP say they will give referendums on many wide ranging issues.People can then choose the issues / policies they want instead of the EU or establishment / pc brigade groups making the decisions.
They have, however, not said what these issues would be, nor how the £50,000 per referendum cost for a town the size of Stevenage will be covered.
The AV referendum was forced on the Tories as part of the coalition agreement. The Scottish referendum is SNP policy and is their raison d'être. I'll only believe we will ever get a referendum on the EU when the ballot paper drops through my letterbox.
Governments have been implementing policies they had no mandate for since God was in short trousers and those that aren't popular they keep under the radar like the one Mandelson admitted to on immigration..
again true.
the AV referendum was instigated by the liberals, who lost.
but of the 3 most obvious referenda the rule does not fit.
Should we have referenda on leaving all the other organisations where we share decision-making .... NATO, for starters?
Perhaps we could just one referendum and include all such organisations on the same ballot. It might be useful just to find out which ones which are members of.
Comments
On something this fundamental to the nature of democracy, it is the only right thing to do.
I used to think that.
But I do not think we are handing over powers. We are sharing powers with a our fellow 26 member states.
It is a delegation, a dilution of democracy. A 1/27th influence on matters that concern Britain compared to a 100% influence where parliament is sovereign is something I think the British people should have been consulted on.
A trading agreement was the subject of the '75 referendum, not political union.
In a group of 27 member states, that seems reasonable. Although, with QMV, UK has more than 1/27th of the votes.
Margaret Thatchter took the UK into the EU single market.
Under John Major, the UK ratified the Maastricht Treaty.
No need for referenda. UK parliamentart is sovereign in these matters.
Because the EU referendum has constitutional consequences - benefit and NHS changes do not.
The UK does not have a written constituion. So exactly what consequences are these ?
You mean it affects MPs supposed powers?
And that they did not consult the public is a matter of regret.
One of the great fallacies - our constitution is not in one document and is not entirely written either but we do have one - the most relevant part being the supremacy of Parliament - which has not been entirely true since 1973 - all legislation has to comply with the requirements of the EU, so while Parliament does indeed pass legislation - that legislation must comply with the rules passed by the EU.
A regret for whom ? I do not regret this.
Via the UK's represenation in the EU council of ministers and EU parliament, the UK contributes to the rules which are adopted by the UK parliament.
I don't see why that should be the case, just because it has been so in the past. In particular, modern technology makes it a lot more practicable and far less costly to have regular referenda on wide range of key issues.
The only major hurdle, as far as I can see, is the political elite who don't want to give up some of their power.
Do you have any evidence to back that up at all?
The fact that we don't get many referenda, even on matters that some would argue affect our constitution/sovereignty, would be a good indication that this is the case.
Governments holds referendums on issues they want and expect a vote that agrees with them and they rarely ever deviate from that unless they have no choice.
no it wouldn't.
You have identified a fact. that we don't have many referenda. and used to to reach an entirely unsupported conclusion.
there is no link between the two. any of the other possible explanations is supported equally by your evidence.
To anyone with an interest in parliamentary democracy and the use of plebiscite on constitutional matters.
there is truth in that.
although there are many exceptions. the AV referendum, scottish independence(?), the upcoming EU referendum? all seem likely to be lost by the proposer.
but it's quite a cynical interpretation. you could equally well propose that that governments don't peruse policies, let alone seek a mandate for things that are unpopular. why would they.
The AV referendum was forced on the Tories as part of the coalition agreement. The Scottish referendum is SNP policy and is their raison d'être. I'll only believe we will ever get a referendum on the EU when the ballot paper drops through my letterbox.
Governments have been implementing policies they had no mandate for since God was in short trousers and those that aren't popular they keep under the radar like the one Mandelson admitted to on immigration..
again true.
the AV referendum was instigated by the liberals, who lost.
but of the 3 most obvious referenda the rule does not fit.
No.
The LibDems wanted electoral reform
The Conservatives offered an AV referendum.
The rule you refer to included the phrase "unless they have no choice".
Perhaps we could just one referendum and include all such organisations on the same ballot. It might be useful just to find out which ones which are members of.