Referendum? Just say no

Before I raise the blood-pressure of at least one of my fellow Sharpener writers, let me be clear at the start. I am in favour of the new EU constitution, albeit in a somewhat guarded fashion. My vote on it will almost certainly be a yes.

What I object to is more fundamental – I simply hate referendums. They are a blot on the electoral landscape, they provide craven politicians with an excuse to abdicate responsibility and they undermine the very nature of representative democracy. They should simply never happen.

Many commentators have bemoaned the Labour party’s perceived mangling of the British constitution. They have claimed that devolution is dismantling the kingdom, that Lords reform has resulted in a half-way house that pleases nobody, and that the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor has shown the incompetence of the whole enterprise. Arguments can be made for all these statements. But for me, the most damning legacy that Labour has left on our way of government, and one of the least mentioned, is its headlong dash to hold referendums whenever the going gets tough.

Let me explain.

Some historical stuff

Until the inglorious year of 1975, Britain had somehow managed to muddle through for centuries on end without holding a single referendum. Imagine that. We had abolished slavery, allowed Catholics to be MPs, given women the vote, defeated Hitler, become a member of NATO, awarded the Beatles all OBEs and even joined the then European Community. All without the need for ‘putting the issue before the British people’.

What happened in 1975? Did our enlightened rulers suddenly realise that we needed to be more engaged in the political process, be enthused with our direct influence on the fate of our nation?

Er, no. Harold Wilson was having a little local difficulty with members of his own front bench. So, for reasons that were all to do with political expediency, and nothing at all to do with the rights of the British people to have a say, we had our first referendum. Our first tentative step onto the slippery slope.

Fast forward to 1979. Again, a Labour prime minister was having trouble with members of his own party, this time on devolution legislation. His majority was so slim that the government could have fallen. The solution? Let’s hold some referendums. 100% expediency, 0% principle.

I hardly need go on. Tony Blair understood the tactical brilliance of holding referendums to avoid the need for difficult political debate. So, referendums were promised on all manner of subjects from, once again, devolution, to whether the UK would join the Euro.

And then, with his second term in trouble, he became increasingly nervous about having to face the electorate at an election promising to ratify the EU constitution. He knew the Tories would make hay. The debate must be shut down. Enter that old stalwart of Labour prime ministers in difficulty – the referendum. He’s off the hook again. But don’t for one minute try to persuade me that this was anything other than the grubbiest form of expediency.

No, and no again

Of course, the fact that referendums in Britain have without exception been held for the convenience of politicians, rather than out of any elevated feeling of principle, is not necessarily a reason for condemning them out of hand. But it should put us seriously on our guard.

And the problems with referendums run very deep indeed. Let me start with a hypothetical example.

Take the EU constitution referendum due in the next year or so (the French permitting). Say I am a rampant Europhile. That my aspiration is to have a EU superstate, where all European peoples live under one set of laws in happy harmony.

I take a look at the constitution. What do I find? A document that, in my eyes, kowtows excessively to the nation states, retains unanimity on far too many subjects and is an enormous barrier in the way of my vision of a future Europe. Clearly I cannot support such a document. So I vote no. The day of the referendum comes, and imagine my joy as my side, the ‘no’ side, wins. Tomorrow, my government will clearly follow my views, the views of the majority of my countrymen, and seek to renegotiate the constitution to further my dream of closer integration.

You can see which way this is going. In the perverse way of referendums, my ‘no’ vote is interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it in fact signifies.

Referendums cannot replace proper parliamentary debate, where each detail can be considered, amendments tabled, arguments thrashed out. Indeed, referendums can only serve to undermine, distort and weaken such debate.

Ah, referendophiles may retort, some subjects are too important for mere parliamentary approval. The voice of the people must be heard. To which my response is – arrant nonsense. The more important the subject, the more important it is that it should be approved by parliament. These are our representatives, whose full time job it is, or is supposed to be, to consider complex issues, debate them, and come to a conclusion on our behalf. That they should turn this responsibility over to the population at large because the issue is particularly important is to turn the whole thing on its head. Parliament’s very reason for existence is to take difficult and important decisions. If you don’t believe it is able to do this, you might as well tear up our democratic system altogether and start again.

And where does this logic take us? Modern technology is now advanced enough as to enable the population to take ever more of these ‘difficult’ decisions. Why not have every member of the public type in the level of income tax they think appropriate into a key pad fitted in each household? The average number would then become the level of income tax for the following year. What fun. The same could be done for interest rates, VAT, council tax. We don’t want to let politicians get their hands on these ‘important’ and ‘difficult’ decisions that affect all our lives, now do we? If the result was income tax of 2%, interest rates at 65% and council tax of tuppence a household, well so be it, as it would be at the behest of the people.

And what about criminal trials? Surely some trials (say Shipman or Soham) are too important for the national interest for a mere 12 anonymous jurors to decide their outcome. The entire population should be given the right to text in their verdict. The court proceedings could be put on some 24-hour channel, and everyone would be given the right to vote. It might be difficult to get an unanimous verdict, but surely we ‘trust the people’, don’t we?

Declaring war, appointing judges, siting nuclear power stations, deciding carbon gas emissions. The list is endless. Why not put all these things ‘to the people’?

Defend democracy

You might say that I’m being naïve about parliamentary responsibility. That in fact debates in parliament are nothing but a sham. Perhaps you would be right. But one doesn’t correct a problem by turning to a method the effect of which is to make that problem worse.

Referendums are not midwives for a new golden age of public accountability, rather they are the undertakers of a democratic system that is losing confidence in its own ability to govern.

24 comments
  1. Spot on, sir.

  2. Benjamin said:

    The European Union is hopelessly undemocratic at present. I cannot support the European Constitution in its present form.

  3. Andrew said:

    You are being naive about parliamentary responsibility. Debates in parliament are nothing but a sham.

    Well, you did ask for it…

    The problem I have with that is that you’re concentrating a lot of power in an increasingly professionalised group of people who are more interested in their own careers than the good of the country. There’s a lot to be said for the wisdom of crowds.

    (Of course, the wisdom of crowds sometimes leads to a group of people picking up torches and burning people at the stake, but I don’t think this is one of those issues).

    Yes, it is lazy politicking, but it’s also a nice side effect that it’s very difficult to make constitutional change without getting an explicit mandate for it. But hey, I’m a soft-libertarian – I would say that.

  4. sean said:

    Stop blogging, you fucking pompous moron.

  5. Alex said:

    I take it you’re Sean “Zyklon B! Bee! Bee!” Thomas?

  6. Sean, old son, I thought you were meant to be in the south of France?

    Just to let you know, The Sharpener isn’t for flaming. Express yourself coherently and politely, as I know you are able, or I’ll happily delete your comments. Ta.

  7. Hew BG said:

    In many cases, I think you are spot on. The analysis of labour govts running into trouble is particularly illuminating.

    However, on this topic, I think you are wrong. We do not have the opportunity – as with any normal bill – to pass amendments. This is the whole purpose of the parliamentary debate: to shape the bill under discussion. This constitution is a given in its entirety. All we can do is say “Yes” or “No”. In this context, the referendum is absolutely correct.

    To be honest, this is where the analysis falls. If the referendum option were not available, this is probably what would have happened:
    1. Blair would have gone hell for leather for a ratification in parliament in the fastest possible time, and delayed the election as far as poss.
    With a stonking majority and the govt rottweilers, err…, whips in force, a slack handful of rebels might have staged a protest, but…
    – the lib dems would have been on side
    – the tories would have fallen apart.
    He would have railroaded it through with oodles of room to spare and the whole thing would have been done in a week. End of story.
    2. Wait 6 months or so, Europe is a done deal and there is really nothing to argue about. “Schools’n’hospitals” it is then…

    Net result, the public would never have been asked at all and there would have been bugger all they could do about it.

  8. Gareth said:

    I dunno, you’re pro-EU Constitution and anti-celebrating St George’s Day.

    Doesn’t take a genius! Does St George’s Day fall a bit too close to Europe Day for your liking? :-
    )

  9. Stephen C said:

    A persuasive case, sir.

    Overall, the specific problem with the EU Constitution referendum is less the principle of having one in the first place, and more the fact that Blair knows that he doesn’t stand a chance of winning it, because:

    a. most people will vote ‘no’ because they don’t like foreigners;
    b. other people (or perhaps the same people) will vote ‘no’ in order to give Blair another kicking;
    c. a few intelligent souls (5% of the total?) will vote ‘no’ because they have looked at the constitution in whole or in part, and genuinely believe it would be bad for Britain and/or Europe.

    Perhaps this makes the point for you.

    (I write the above as one of the small number who are firmly in the ‘yes’ camp.)

    I wish Blair had never mentioned the bloody thing.

  10. EU Serf said:

    Stephen C called me an intelligent soul. Thanks Stephen.

    You do have a point about the government being free to understand the result as they wish to.

    It rather shows that what we need is a written constitution to stop abuses of government, not referendums.

  11. Quite a few points to get through here.

    First, Andrew – if you take the view that important decisions should not be taken by ‘an increasingly professionalised group of people who are more interested in their own careers than the good of the country’ then we should really give up the ghost on this whole parliamentary democracy malarkey. Best throw in the towel now. There is, as I cheerfully admit, a problem with the current parliamentary system, but the solution is not to turn to a mechanism that only exacerbates that problem by allowing parliamentarians to resile from their most fundamental responsibilities (are you not the tiniest bit concerned that the fact that Blair promised referendums on the Euro and the EU constitution completely removed these two crucial issues from this month’s election?).

    Sean – your eloquence humbles me. If only I had your subtle way with the English language.

    Hew BG – You’re right that the constitution is a take it or leave it proposition. But parliament can give a reasoned response. You cannot have a ‘no, because’ in a referendum. Parliament could say ‘we reject the constitution because we want clause X to say Y’, or ‘we want the constitution to say more on workers’ rights, or freedom of trade, or deregulation’. A ‘no’ vote in a referendum leaves us where exactly? What message is the government to take from this? It could say that the constitution was rejected because it was not integrationist enough. And how could this be denied? A ‘no’ vote tells us nothing very helpful. You could deduce any argument you like from it.

    Stephen C – yes, you do rather make my point for me. The reason we have MPs is for them to look at difficult and complex issues and come to decisions. We pay them large amounts of money to do this, and we chuck them out if we don’t like them. This is what representative democracy is all about.

  12. Alex said:

    Gareth:

    I dunno, you’re pro-EU Constitution and anti-celebrating St George’s Day.

    Doesn’t take a genius! Does St George’s Day fall a bit too close to Europe Day for your liking? :-
    )

    Comment by Gareth — May 17, 2005 @ 1:40 pm

    Now, can anyone tell us what he’s on about?

  13. Rob Read said:

    What is an election if not a referendum on our current rulers?

  14. Rob: You’re right. Elections are supposed to be (in a sense) a referendum on the government. Unfortunately, a great proportion of the British public (and this is true in other democratic countries) use referendums as if they were some sort of quasi-election.

    (And it IS ‘referendums’, not ‘referenda’, before we start on that one.)

  15. Simon said:

    I can’t believe we’ve got to 15 comments without referring to Clement Attlee’s memorable denunciation of referendums: “a device for demagogues and dictators”, he called them.

  16. I don’t think you can compare general elections and referendum

    If the last election had been a referendum, the question would have been:

    do you want the Labour government to continue in office, yes or no?

    What would we have done with a ‘no’ vote? Referendums cannot give their results any meaning. A ‘no’ vote could be taken as a victory for anyone non-Labour, from the Tories through to the Lib Dems, Respect or the BNP. In effect, the result would be useless, as it would give no signal of where the country wanted to head. The same with the EU referendum.

  17. Hew BG said:

    Third Avenue,

    This is a very tricky topic. You are completely correct in your analysis, but ONLY on the assumption that Parliament would actually vote against this constitution.

    Were that the case, you are spot on. The problem is that this fundamental assumption is flawed. Parliament just simply would not be able to throw it out as it would very likely bring down the government with it.

    The only way to reject the document is to invite a rebuttal of “No, what?” as you correctly say.

    IMHO, this is a better outcome than “Yes” (for all sorts of reasons that are a totally separate topic).

    Given this reality (as opposed to an entirely theoretical rejection by Parliament), the referendum is the best way to show the will of the people in this case.

  18. Hew – I think we both agree on the nature of the problem. Where we disagree is on the solution.

    Parliamentary decision-making is very far from perfect, as you point out. But are referendums really the way forward? My argument is that they make what is already broken even worse. They are the medicine that could kill the patient.

  19. Rowan said:

    Hmm. After having had a look at the text of the Constitutional Treaty, I find that this is the first sentence:

    Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this
    Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to
    attain objectives they have in common.

    Now, does that not pretty much mandate a referendum? Without a referendum in each signatory state (if that is the correct term to use) it would not be possible to claim that the treaty has the support of the citizens of member states.

    The only way (that I can see) that it could be claimed that the ratification of the treaty is consonant with the will of citizens of member states without calling referendums would be to call a general election in each member state, to be fought on the basis of each party’s desire to accept or reject the treaty. This would obviously be ridiculous and would be an extremely clunky way of ascertaining the will of citizens–especially under first past the post electoral systems.

  20. Rowan said:

    I said “desire”; I really meant “intention”.

  21. Rowan said:

    Actually reading the front page of yesterday’s Independent after posting that heap of nonsense up there was a bit of a forehead-slapping moment: 9 countries expect to ratify the treaty by parliamentary vote. Still, I think the moral case for referendums still stands even if it’s a bit shaky in the face of Third Avenue’s comments, which I’m in broad agreement with.

  22. Anonymous said:

    I really enjoy looking through your website

  23. Anonymous said:

    I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to create this internet website. It has been extremely helpful