Other UK referendums

One reason for the lack of debate over the principle of referendums is that several more have been held in the UK since 1975, although not across the whole nation (see Box 1.8). The basic idea seems to be that major constitutional changes should not take place without a vote of those who will be most affected. The first of these referendums, in Northern Ireland, took place 2 years before the 1975 poll. Although this vote received relatively little attention in other parts of the UK, for the inhabitants of Northern Ireland it concerned the most vital question of all — whether Westminster or Dublin would have the ultimate authority over them. The problem is that, although it seems agreed universally that referendums should be held on important constitutional issues, people continue to differ in their view of what is important. Thus in June 2003 the Labour government announced referendums on regional government in the north east, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. These were the three English regions which had indicated the strongest interest in having their own assemblies. However, at exactly the same time the government rejected the case for a referendum on a European constitution. It argued that none of the proposals currently being discussed would involve a radical change in the way that the UK was governed. However, the public seemed to favour a referendum, and it was difficult to argue that an EU constitution would have less effect on the UK than the proposed regional assemblies, which would have more limited powers than the Scottish Parliament.

In theory, regular referendums on key political questions are an important asset to any liberal democracy. Yet the original objections still have some force. On the basis of UK practice, another oddity can be identified. One would expect that people would regard the results of referendums as being more conclusive than parliamentary votes, since everyone in the country has a direct voice. Yet this has not been the case. Apart from the local referendums on elected mayors, the only UK referendums that have apparently laid a controversy to rest are the 1997 polls on devolution to Scotland and Wales (and even these decisions might be changed if demands grow for complete independence).

There is actually a good reason for this phenomenon. Reserving the referendum for really 'big' questions seems, in theory, to be a fair compromise between direct and indirect democracy. However, these are precisely the issues about which passions are least likely to die away, even after 'the people have spoken'.

Despite these remaining questions, it is fair to conclude that, in principle, the referendum can be an asset for a liberal democracy.

Essay "Do referendums improve or endanger liberal democracy?"

Liberal democracies are countries that are governed in accordance with certain "core" liberal principles, such as the right to free and fair elections, freedom of expression at all times, and the impartial administration of justice. The UK is generally regarded as a liberal democracy, even if it is an unusual one because it lacks a written constitution.

Referendums allow voters to register their opinion on specific questions regarding constitutional or policy issues and are also used in order to make the UK more democratic.

i will start from considering arguments for the referendums:

First and one of the most important points to mention is that referendum is theform of direct democracy. They provide people with the opportunity to say what they think and to decide what they want.

Argument following from previous one is that referendumsencourage people's participation.

It is true to a large extent- when referendums are coming people start to become interested in what is going on in the politics. Referendums are not a common thing and are you used only in such situations when the will of the citizens is very important, because it can greatly effect people's life, such for instance as joining the EU (1975).People just do not have what to do but to participate. And this participation and involvement leads to the strengthening of the liberal democracy.

What is more, the use of the referendums is like a kind of acheck on "elective dictatorship".For instance, if Tony Blair promised a referendum he just needs to do it, or otherwise he will fall in the eyes of the electors.

Except the fact that this feature of the democratic form of governance gives us aclear answer to a specific question, it alsounites divided parties after the result is known-

Referendums help us todeal with flaws in mandate theory, meaning that if you win the elections and referendum was a part your party manifesto then you can try to pass a law.

Moreover, itprovides a mandate for controversial issues, particularly constitutional ones. Referendums help us to check if it is what people want. Following this we can assume that they also provide us with thedevice for resolving controversial moral issues.

Furthermore, they are like aspecial form of entrenchment. If 70% of aft of the electors voted in favor of any issue questioned on the referendum then it could be passed and entrenched.

And to finish with the advantages of the referendum the last point to mention is that this democratic featurelegitimizes important decisions affecting the constitution.

Nevertheless, on the other side of the coin there are arguments against the referendums:

Starting to criticize the referendums the first fact that needs to be noticed is that itis inconsistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which is supreme law making power, as well asrepresentative democracy, meaning that we elect representatives to make decisions for us. This undermines the House of Commons.

^

Next disadvantage is that issues may be toocomplex to be resolved with the simple yes/no terms. Moreover people just could not be fully informed about the issue itself to give a proper answer. It could be that the answer for the question asked is obvious but when it is examined more deeply it maybe that the answer is not that simple.

Furthermore, although in the beginning of the period when referendums will be starting to be used the turnout would be high, later it could result in thedecrease of the participation. People would just get bored of the participation, which certainly requires time as well as knowledge about each topic. Following from that point we may say that low participation willdistort the results and then referendums will be useless.(example- EU Constitution)

Sometimes, different not expected results maynot bedecisive. Using the example of the French referendum on the issue of the European Treaty, when the results differed in only some tenth of the percent and were almost 50/50%, we may say that in such situations referendums will be useless as well.(like Northern Ireland in 1973)

A very important fact to take into account is that sometimes theresults may bebiased: either because of the funding differences or media influence as well as because of the possible bias in the question asked. For example, 1975 –Euro.

Not less important criticism of the referendums is that sometimes when majority wins it can result in theminority becomingangry, and the peace in the country may be distorted.

Lastly, sometimes referendums can be used forthe 'wrong reasons' such as, for instance, when government wants to look well in the eyes of the citizens and uses these democratic features in order to gain a benefit from them. (1975 or 1997)

There were already 6 referendums held in UK since 1973, and 2 more are coming soon on the issues of the EURO currency and European Constitution. And regardless of those criticisms discussed below there is no point in being not sure whether referendums are a good or a bad policy of governance. Without doubt it is really a good feature of democratic policy as it provides people a chance to say what they think and it certainly improves liberal democracy.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 812