For the record, I welcomed the Liberal Democrats' call for an in-out referendum back in the 1990s when the sniping at the EU had already reached fever-pitch. I was sorry that the bar for a referendum was set high in subsequent party manifestos. On the other hand, I accepted the British tradition that referendums could only be advisory, that the final decision rested with Parliament and felt that, while a large vote in either direction required the government's attention, nothing less than a reversal of the two-thirds majority in favour of Remaining in the 1975 referendum should have caused the government to think again about membership. (And, yes, I agree that the very narrow majority in the 1997 referendum was hardly a ringing endorsement for Welsh devolution - but then again the question on the ballot was too simplistic.)
In my brief research for this piece I came across the 1996 Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums. The summary in the foreword states:
The principal message of our report is this:
- referendums cannot provide a panacea for major political problems; but they can significantly assist governments before controversial legislation is introduced, and they can give greater legitimacy to new policies after legislation has been enacted.
- referendums need offer no threat to Parliamentary sovereignty. It is open to governments and Parliament to set up all referendums by primary legislation or, alternatively, to enact a generic Referendum Act as a statutory basis for the conduct of a series of referendums.
- previous UK referendums have been successfully held without formal guidelines; but the varied character, in particular, of possible future referendums underlines the importance of establishing guidelines, accepted by all political parties, which will ensure consistency of administration in their conduct and maximize confidence in the legitimacy of their results
- there is a strong case for the independent handling of at least some elements of the conduct of referendums, especially if the Government is committed to a particular result. Hence our recommendation of an independent statutory commission or, alternatively, the placing on an electoral commission, if it were established, specific responsibilities for the conduct of referendums.
What triggered this post was the revelation on Facebook that David Davis, former Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, was also once of this view. I do not know whether my Facebook friend had scoured Hansard for just such evidence of a U-turn, or whether he came across it by accident in research on failed attempts to introduce elected regional assemblies to England. Anyway, here are the key excerpts from Mr Davis's contribution to the debate on Labour's 2002 proposals:
Let us deal with the major problem with the Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister [John Prescott] says the Bill will bring about more democracy, but, in a democracy, voters have to know what they are voting for. They need to know what the choice is, to use his own word. For that to happen, the proposition has to come before the vote, but with the Bill, it will be vote first, proposition afterwards. The Bill proposes that referendums should be held without voters knowing the structure or powers of the assemblies for which they are asked to vote.
There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.
As it stands, the Bill [...] asks people to vote for proposals that are unspecified, untried and untested. I would have relished the opportunity to debate the details of regional assemblies, but, clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is not ready to have that debate. It is simply wrong for the Government to come to the House and act in this way. If they do, how can we trust them when it comes to the referendum? Major constitutional changes justify the use of referendums because the constitutional rights of our citizens are owned by the people and not by politicians. However, it is important that referendums are not misused simply as a snapshot of volatile changes of opinion, perhaps as a result of pressure of Government propaganda. That is why Donald Dewar and John Smith used to talk about the settled will of the population.
The concept of settled will is that of an idea that has taken root in the minds of the people, has resonance in their daily lives and is a stable part of the way in which they think the country should be run. Because referendums are supposed to reflect the settled will of the people, we need to have thresholds below which they do not carry the day.
I have added some emphases.
No comments:
Post a Comment