A101 - Referendums Amendment (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
Leaning towards Nay at the moment here. Though I do think that something along these lines is necessary I don't think this is the way to go about it. It's far too ambiguous at the moment. Make it a set period of time, e.g. 18 months, because three terms can in reality mean anything.

Unlikely I admit but If Superunknown17 calls an election tonight that's one term. Lets say whoever takes over as PM in December calls an election in late January, there's two terms, then the RL general comes along and by mid June the three terms have been completed!

Also, as much as I don't think it'll come to it, have a situation where a referendum can be overturned if 3/4 of the House agrees to it
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
Abstain
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Leaning towards Nay at the moment here. Though I do think that something along these lines is necessary I don't think this is the way to go about it. It's far too ambiguous at the moment. Make it a set period of time, e.g. 18 months, because three terms can in reality mean anything.

Unlikely I admit but If Superunknown17 calls an election tonight that's one term. Lets say whoever takes over as PM in December calls an election in late January, there's two terms, then the RL general comes along and by mid June the three terms have been completed!

Also, as much as I don't think it'll come to it, have a situation where a referendum can be overturned if 3/4 of the House agrees to it
Apologies for the late reply. The merit I see in basing it on terms is that short terms tend to represent substantial changes in the political landscape, be it the Government doing something controversial enough to be VoNCed out, resigning due to not being able to fill their duties or a real-life election occurring. When this happens it makes some sense to have the potential for a referendum to be held slightly sooner, although there is some merit to 18 months as a compromise between three and four terms.

(Original post by The Legal Eagle)
It was about the 3, including the current, so whether it'd be 4 - Parliament A, B, C and D (D=current). Was confused as to whether it would go back to A (3 being C, B, and A) or to B (3 being D, C, B). That's all.

Either way, 2 parliaments, yes. 3 or more, no. 1 parliament is too short, meaning it is pretty much ineffective.
Apologies also for the late reply. "Three including the current", which is identical to presently used phrasing in the Guidance Document, would quite clearly to me indicate the Parliament of the day in addition to the two proceeding it. That would translate to your second option, applying to Parliaments B, C and D but not to referendums instigated by Parliament A. Does this solution have your support?
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
Hmm i'll think about it. Two terms would have been a lot better in my eyes.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
Hmm i'll think about it. Two terms would have been a lot better in my eyes.
Remember that the three terms does include the current term - meaning the longest case scenario is 18 months. Considering referendums are probably skewed towards the end of terms (after the Bill has been internally debated, written and then the Community Team agree to and arrange the referendum itself) it'll be pretty close to 12 months most of the time
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Green_Pink)
Remember that the three terms does include the current term - meaning the longest case scenario is 18 months. Considering referendums are probably skewed towards the end of terms (after the Bill has been internally debated, written and then the Community Team agree to and arrange the referendum itself) it'll be pretty close to 12 months most of the time
I thought that people said that it was 3 whole terms, not including the current one. It needs clarification in the amendment.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by Cryptographic)
I thought that people said that it was 3 whole terms, not including the current one. It needs clarification in the amendment.
"the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)" makes sense to me and is in line with the current GD phrasing, but you're not the first person to mention that. Would you be able to suggest an alternative you feel is clearer?
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by Green_Pink)
"the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)" makes sense to me and is in line with the current GD phrasing, but you're not the first person to mention that. Would you be able to suggest an alternative you feel is clearer?
A time period, as terms could be just one or two months long. Say "can not be overruled within 21 months" or something.
0
toronto353
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
This is in cessation.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#30
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (499)
37.83%
No - but I will (101)
7.66%
No - I don't want to (90)
6.82%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (629)
47.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed