More on referendums

Last week, I was speaking in the chamber on successive days.  On Wednesday, I introduced motions to take note of two reports from the Constitution Committee on the legislative process and the following day spoke in a QSD (Question for Short Debate) on referendums and representative democracy.  The latter debate was time limited.  So many peers had signed up that backbench speakers only had three minutes each.  I kept within time and my contribution was sufficiently short so that I can repeat it in full here.  Lord Soley’s motion referred to referenda, but in his speech he referred throughout to referendums, so I did not need to take up time explaining why it is referendums and not referenda.  Regular readers will know that referendum as a Latin gerund has no plural.  The Latin gerundive referenda, meaning things to be referred, connotes a plurality of issues.  Anyway, here is the speech.  The same regular readers will also be familiar with some of the points, given more recent posts.

‘My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on raising this important issue.  I wish to raise two problems with referendums.

The noble Lord raised the issue in the context of representative democracy.  In a representative democracy, electors choose those who will govern on their behalf and can then hold them to account for their actions.  The problem with a referendum is that there is no accountability.  Electors cannot hold themselves to account for the outcome of a referendum.  A referendum is thus, strictly speaking, an irresponsible act.

Once a decision is taken, it is left to others to implement.  This leads to the second problem.  We know how people vote in a referendum, as there is a formal, recorded outcome.  We do not know definitively why they voted as they did.  Politicians may think they know.  The EU referendum is a case in point.  We hear politicians claim that people did not vote for a hard or a soft Brexit, when what they mean is that they think electors voted in a way that aligns with their preference.  They cannot prove it.

The result is that it leaves those who are responsible for acting on the outcome in a difficult, if not impossible, situation.  I have previously likened the UK’s membership of the European Union to a marriage, a marriage of convenience, arranged late when the previous preferred relationship was not proving fruitful. Now electors have voted for a divorce.  That is the starting point.  How do you divide the assets? Who gets custody of the children?  Those responsible for negotiating the terms of the divorce know definitively only that a divorce has been agreed.

I have previously expressed opposition to referendums on grounds of principle, but we are now faced with referendums as a part of our constitutional architecture.  We cannot undo their use, but we need to think through how we handle them in future, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, indicated.  We need to learn from not just the EU referendum but earlier ones as well.  Will the Minister tell us what thought has been given to a generic referendums Bill?  We need such a measure before we embark on another referendum.’

About Lord Norton

Professor of Government at Hull University, and Member of the House of Lords
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More on referendums

  1. tizres says:

    Presenting an LBC slot on Thursday 26 June, Jacob Rees-Mogg argued that a referendum is an election: is he getting his gerunds in a twist?

  2. maud elwes says:

    If a Referendum is presented as a ‘yeah’ or ‘nay’ to be held and respected in a vow by a trusting, if naive electorate, as this one was for in or out of the EU, then of course it is an ‘election’. Unless, what you are suggesting is the prerogative of a Prime Minister to lie to the electorate in order to mislead and misrepresent, must be the expected rule of office.

    How Remain can dare pretend this decision was made blind, shows the absurd ignorance of the majority who sit as representatives of the people in the Commons and Lords of this nation today, is untenable.

    To now sit and watch musical chairs for more of the same disrespect is unbearable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s