UKH

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee today issued a damning report into the effect of the EU Referendum on UK democratic process:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubadm/496/49...

'The UK Government initiated the process which led to the referendum, despite being against the suggested proposal, and with the aim of using a negative result to shut down the debate about the question at issue. Moreover, the referendum was confined to a tight question, on the basis of a clear binary choice. There could, however, have been more positive efforts to explain, and therefore to plan for, the consequences for voters in the event of either outcome... Using a referendum as a “bluff call” in order to close down unwelcome debate on an issue is a questionable use of referendums. Indeed, it is incumbent on future Parliaments and governments to consider the potential consequences of promising referendums, particularly when, as a result, they may be expected to implement an outcome that they opposed.'

In reply to Murderous_Crow:

Re your subject line I'll just quote the rest of the paragraph - "Despite this claim, and the fact that it took until 1973 for the first major referendum in the United Kingdom to take place (the Northern Ireland Sovereignty Referendum - commonly referred to as the ‘Border Poll’), referendums have long featured in discussions on constitutional and political reform in the United Kingdom. "

It's damning about Cameron's motivations for the referendum, which I think everybody agrees was to get a "remain" result and settle the question, and it's damning about the government's (Cameron's) failure to plan for the "wrong" result. I can't see that it's at all damning regarding the effect on our democratic process, seems to say that referendums are a part of our process that's long established at this point. Interesting though, so ta for posting.

In reply to thomasadixon:
No problem, you're welcome.

I don't disagree and I'm not sure why you're quoting that paragraph. I was specific regarding the toxic effect of the *EU Referendum* on our democratic process, not referendums in general. As you say, there's plenty of precedent for their use.

What is unacceptable is the abuse of referendums, for example to settle party political issues. Both by accident and by design, Mr Cameron and his Govt are certainly guilty of such abuse, as the authors of the report make clear. The headline of the report on the Parliament website is 'EU Referendum: Government actions led to public distrust':

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/...

The report states:

- the referendum was mooted to settle internal party politics
- the outcome was unplanned-for
- the PM abdicated responsibility
- trust in Government and in democratic process was undermined
- the question was simplistic, with inadequate discussion as to the consequences

Which are all pretty damning points.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Surely the manner in which the referendum campaigns were conducted, as well as the manner in which the referendum was conceived, are damaging to our democracy?

In reply to Murderous_Crow:


Well because the report says that this comment is historical, and incorrect in current times. Referendums are not alien, they are by now a part of our traditions.


I can't see that this was the case, or that the report says so. The report says that referendums should be on questions that are as clear as possible, and in this case, "the referendum was confined to a tight question, on the basis of a clear binary choice." It also says that this particular issue is a fundamental constitutional issue, one of a few clear issues that should be put to a referendum.


Cameron chose to hold a referendum for more than one reason - partly internal and partly to damage UKIP at the election. The former might be a bad idea but the latter is what democratic parties exist to do. UKIP would have taken votes that Cameron wanted, and the only way he could get them was to promise the referendum. I find it hard to see that as abuse. It's giving the voters what they want - a majority of the country wanted a referendum.

Back to work now (catching up after hols is horrible) will have a read of the other report when I get a chance.

In reply to Trevers:


Why? The referendum campaigns were conducted pretty much as elections are generally conducted. What happened that was damaging to democracy?

Our government following the results of the referendum is a huge boost to democracy, as it shows we can make a big difference despite endless claims that voting does nothing. It's a massive contrast to "democracy" as practised elsewhere, in our favour. As was the Scottish referendum.

In reply to thomasadixon:


There's already an inherent problem there. We weren't electing a ruling party, or anybody to take responsibility, hence we saw the prime minister jump ship having promised to implement the result. There was no manifesto for change, allowing the Leave side to simply pretend that the empty £350 million claim had never been made, even though it possibly swayed the balance of the vote.


In my opinion it is completely the opposite. In following the more or less arbitrary 'will of the people', the government has its hands tied. The manifesto on which the last government was elected is now worthless, and many more important issues facing our society will be swept under the rug. We've had an MP murdered in the streets, the independence of the judges undermined, a sham vote in Parliament and the prospect of war with a fellow European nation raised by an allegedly respectable politician. The outcome of negotiations will likely be dictated by political expediency and politics in Europe, not by the best possible mutually beneficial outcome. I fail to see how any of these are a boost to democracy.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The EU referendum and the Scottish Independence referendum were fundamentally different in that the Scottish government were holding a referendum to get a Yes vote for something they wanted to do. There was an official paper describing their policy. The EU referendum did not have an official position about what would happen if there was a Yes vote which resulted in different groups of voters being made different and conflicting promises.

I think it is fundamentally wrong for a government to hold a Yes/No referendum on a policy they do not want to implement. There needs to be a three stage process i.e. first elect a government that wants to do it, then the government defines what a Yes vote will mean, then the referendum is held.

In reply to Murderous_Crow:

One way of thinking about it - will Cameron be remembered as the visionary who took us out of Europe to whatever fate awaits; or as a guy who made a political gamble, f*cked up and lost his job.

In reply to thomasadixon:
The EU Ref was ill-conceived, badly planned, and dreadfully argued. Its outcome also seems to have been a foregone conclusion. Mr Cameron took a horrendous chance and in his arrogance assumed the populace would fall into line (edit to add: his use of scare tactics was widely condemned at the time, and proved disastrous). The ramifications of the outcome are not yet understood. The PACAC recognises this in its report, and strongly condemns the shoddy and myopic thinking behind the decision to hold the EU ref; the Govt's failure to realistically assess the potential outcomes; and the (counter-productive) failure to communicate in an unbiased fashion with the electorate. The full text of the paragraph from which you quoted reads:

'If the results of referendums are to command the maximum of public support, acceptance and legitimacy, then they must be held on questions and issues which are as clear as possible. Voters should be presented with a choice, where the consequences of either outcome are clear. There is bound to be uncertainty arising from what might be termed a “bluff-call” referendum, like the 2016 EU referendum, but this should not limit how the participants campaign on either side. The UK Government initiated the process which led to the referendum, despite being against the suggested proposal, and with the aim of using a negative result to shut down the debate about the question at issue. Moreover, the referendum was confined to a tight question, on the basis of a clear binary choice. There could, however, have been more positive efforts to explain, and therefore to plan for, the consequences for voters in the event of either outcome. This would have required providing impartial consideration of the outcome which the Government clearly did not want.'

I think Trevers' and Tom's last posts hit the nail on the head.


My topic title was misleading, my apologies. It's not an 'alien device' anymore, I simply liked the use of English, and enjoyed the contrast with the current national surge in xenophobic feeling, for a bit of wordplay.


It's the same report. The full report, summary and conclusions are on different pages.

In reply to Trevers:


So? What we saw was too competing sides putting forward claims about what would happen. People got bitter and nasty, as they always do unfortunately. Then we made a choice. How else did you expect it to go?


That's the nature of a referendum.


We're having an election now which changes things somewhat, but anyway - importance is subjective, I think leaving the EU is very important. The manifesto still controls them - see Hammond and NI.


Gibraltar is a live issue that never goes away, political expediency is always the reality of the day, tabloids always print shock headlines. The death of Jo Cox was bad, but it's one event by a crazy, and didn't harm democracy.

The benefit is, as said, proof that we can make a difference despite endless claims that our votes don't matter.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Cameron did want a vote for something he wanted to do, he had a semi binding agreement with the EU. He lost.


There being different groups who wanted to leave for different reasons resulted in that. Labour wouldn't work either the Tories, etc. The Scottish Independence movement is far more united than the leave the EU one, that's a difference.


We elected a government that promised to have the vote, there was a long preparation period during which the government gave its claims on what would/could happen if we left/stayed. Remember the leaflet?

In reply to pasbury:


Or, more succinctly, as an utterly clueless tosser.

In reply to Murderous_Crow:

I agree the government did a crap job, but it wasn't just them. The remain camp failed to engage the leave camp generally. They had their chance and lost, it's not bad for democracy just because some don't like the outcome.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Very true, but it is bad for democracy if a significant chunk of those who voted for it don't like the outcome. There's far more to gauging 'the will of the people' than counting crosses on oversimplified ballot papers.