Referendums Flashcards
Referendums in the UK…
Referendums in the UK are a form of direct democracy that allows the public to decide on an issue presented to them by the government.
Before 1975…
Before 1975, referendums were almost unknown in the UK.
A attempt to hold a referendum in Northern Ireland failed in 1973 after half the community boycotted it.
1975 Referendum
In 1975, a national referendum was held on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Economic Community, which the country had joined just 2 years prior.
2011 Referendum
In 2011, a national referendum was held on whether to change the UK’s general election system to the alternative vote method, as part of the compromise measures that both parties agreed in the Coalition Agreement of 2010.
The process of holding a referendum…
> Governing party forms a policy
> Legislation is passed determining the rules, process, and wording of the referendum
> Parliament passes the Act, or delegates authority to call a referendum to another body
> The Electoral Commission determines the groups that will officially campaign for each side and approves the wording of the question
> The campaign is held
> The vote occurs
> Based on the outcome, the result is put into force, either automatically or by initiating new legislation
Why might a referendum be held?…
A key reason why a referendum might be held is that it is felt preferable that the people themselves should resolve an issue rather than the elected representatives of the people.
Examples of why referendums have been called in the UK…
> Extension of devolution to Wales (2011) - To entrench a constitutional reform
> North East Assembly (2004) - To test public opinion
> EEC Referendum (1975) / EU Referendum (2016) - To resolve a conflict within a political party
> AV Referendum (2011) - To resolve a conflict between parties sharing power
> Good Friday Agreement (1998) - To resolve a conflict within the wider community
> Scottish Independence Referendum (2014) - To achieve a political goal
What regulations are in place for referendums?…
In national and regional referendums, there is official recognition of the bodies that campaign on each side of the question.
Expenditure on referendum campaigns is regulated to ensure that each side spends approximately equal funds. This is done by the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission also works to ensure that the sides in the campaign do not issue false information and organises the counting of votes.
Referendums can change things whatever the outcome…
Referendums can promote political change and they can also remove policies from the immediate political agenda, as occurred when electoral reform was soundly rejected in 2011.
Should referendums be used to settle political issues? - Arguments for…
> Referendums are the purest form of democracy, uncorrupted by the filter of representative democracy. They demonstrate the pure will of the people, as occurred in the EU vote.
> Referendums can mend rifts in society, as occurred with the decisive result of the 1998 vote on the Belfast Agreement.
> Referendums can solve conflicts within the political system and so stave off a crisis. This was especially the case with the EU referendums in both 1975 and 2016.
> Referendums are particularly useful when the expressed (as opposed to implied) consent of the people is important, so that the decision will be respected. This was very true of the votes on devolution in 1997.
> The people are arguably much more informed than they ever were in the past. The internet and social media in particular have facilitated this. This makes them more capable of making decisions for themselves rather than relying on elected representatives.
Should referendums be used to settle political issues? - Arguments against…
> The people may not be able to understand the complexities of an issue such as the consequences of leaving the EU or adopting a new electoral system.
> Referendums can cause social rifts. This arguably occurred in both 2014 in Scotland and 2016 in the EU referendum.
> There is a danger that the excessive use of referendums may undermine the authority of representative democracy. This has been a particular danger in some states in the USA.
> A referendum can represent the ‘tyranny of the majority’. This means that the majority that wins the vote can use their victory to force the minority to accept a change that is against their interests. The Scots, who voted strongly to stay in the EU in 2016, claimed they were being tyrannised by the English majority.
> Voters may be swayed by emotional rather than rational appeals. It may also be that they are influenced by false information.
> Some questions should not be reduced to a simple yes/no answer; they are more complicated. The 2011 question on electoral reform is an example of this. Perhaps several different options should have been considered, not just one.
The advantages of representative democracy when it comes to making key decisions…
> Representatives are more likely to adopt a rational approach and resist emotional reactions to questions. For example, many voters were concerned about immigration in the EU referendum and were responding to appeals to their patriotism and the perceived dangers to ‘British values’ posed by migrants entering communities. Elected representatives, on the other hand, could weigh up the benefits as well as the problems of high numbers of migrants.
> Elected politicians have experts to help them make decisions. They can ensure that the information on which they base their judgements is accurate. Most people rely on the media for their information, which is at best conflicting and at worst dubious.
> Elected representatives have to concern themselves with the competing interests of both the majority and minorities. Voters, on the other hand, usually only have to think of their own interests. In the Scottish independence referendum, the people did not need to consider the implications for the UK as a whole. In the same way, voters in the EU referendum did not need to consider the implications for NI of a leave vote.
> There is an expectation that MPs are in a better position to make a reasoned judgement than ordinary people with less knowledge and understanding of the complex issues. Judgement and good sense are qualities we consider when we elect them.
