A176 - Referendum Alteration Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Referendum Alteration Amendment
Proposed by: Quamquam123 MP (LAB)
Seconded by: CoffeeGeek MP (CON), Wilhuff Tarkin MP (CON), CoffeeAndPolitics MP (LAB), TheDefiniteArticle MP (LAB)




Referendum Alteration Amendment



This House shall adjust the Guidance Document as follows:

In the Guidance Document, amend clause 7 of the Referendums section from:

7) No more than 1 referendum may be called in a single term of parliament.

to:

7) No more than 2 referendums may be called in a single term of parliament.


In the Guidance Document, amend clause 9 of the Referendums section from:

9) A member of the Community team will be the returning officer during a referendum.

to:

9) The Speaker will be the returning officer during a referendum.


In the Guidance Document, amend clause 10.3 of the Referendums section from:

10.3) will pass if signed by more than 50% of sitting MPs.

to:

10.3) will follow the procedure of normal petitions.


In the Guidance Document, amend clause 5 of the Referendums section from:

5) Referendums will pass if more votes are cast in favour than against (excluding abstentions), but a bill or motion may stipulate a higher percentage.

to:

5) Referendums will pass if more votes are cast in favour than against (excluding abstentions), but a bill may stipulate a higher percentage.


In the Constitution, amend clause 11.3 of the Referendums section from:

11.3 A referendum can be called by process of a Bill being passed or a petition of MP's.

to:

11.3 A referendum can be called by process of a Bill or referendum petition being passed.


Notes:
This amendment achieves five things. Firstly, it increases the maximum amount of referendums held per term to 2. This is to protect against a scenario in which a flawed manifesto is permitted in a term and a sensible referendum submitted later that term is rejected. Secondly, it makes it so that the Speaker serves as the returning officer during a referendum. Although referendums are held in a different forum, they are still a feature of the MHoC and therefore it is logical for the Speaker to oversee the election process and not a reluctant member of the Community Team. Thirdly, it corrects a loophole in the referendum petitions system that has been demonstrated by the recently attempted referendum. Fourthly, it makes it so that a motion cannot be used to stipulate a higher percentage for the referendum to pass. Motions should not be used to affect how the MHoC is run. Finally, it corrects another loophole. In the Guidance Document, a referendum petition can be submitted by a party, an MP, or a non-MP when seconded by an MP. The Constitution seems to imply that only MPs can submit such petitions.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The first bit: why?

Third bit, simply removing the section should be sufficient, I don't think any sane speaker would use the precedent set by Adam when this is clearly intended to void it, it would be a line that does nothing.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
No, the process for calling a referendum works, it does not need changing.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The first bit: why?

Third bit, simply removing the section should be sufficient, I don't think any sane speaker would use the precedent set by Adam when this is clearly intended to void it, it would be a line that does nothing.
The first bit acts as an insurance in case there happens to be an unpopular amendment that fails to cause any interesting debate which blocks a referendum later in the term which could have the opposite effect. Increasing the number to 2 is not a significant change in itself but I do believe it is a useful way to protect against flawed referendums.

That's a fair point but the reason I made the change like that was simply because there isn't actually anything in the referendum petitions section (other than the clause I've highlighted) of the Guidance Document that says referendum peititons should follow the procedure of normal petitions. Especially as more groups of people can submit referendum peititons, I think it might be best to make it as clear as possible how they should proceed.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
I fully agree with the proposed amendments made in this bill and I think my Rt.Hon friend, Quamquam123 has done a good job with this.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Quamquam123)
The first bit acts as an insurance in case there happens to be an unpopular amendment that fails to cause any interesting debate which blocks a referendum later in the term which could have the opposite effect. Increasing the number to 2 is not a significant change in itself but I do believe it is a useful way to protect against flawed referendums.

That's a fair point but the reason I made the change like that was simply because there isn't actually anything in the referendum petitions section (other than the clause I've highlighted) of the Guidance Document that says referendum peititons should follow the procedure of normal petitions. Especially as more groups of people can submit referendum peititons, I think it might be best to make it as clear as possible how they should proceed.
PRSOM!
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Quamquam123)
The first bit acts as an insurance in case there happens to be an unpopular amendment that fails to cause any interesting debate which blocks a referendum later in the term which could have the opposite effect. Increasing the number to 2 is not a significant change in itself but I do believe it is a useful way to protect against flawed referendums.

That's a fair point but the reason I made the change like that was simply because there isn't actually anything in the referendum petitions section (other than the clause I've highlighted) of the Guidance Document that says referendum peititons should follow the procedure of normal petitions. Especially as more groups of people can submit referendum peititons, I think it might be best to make it as clear as possible how they should proceed.
If there is nothing explicitly sating otherwise only a moron would have no idea how to react to such a petition, I know the chair seems to have a dumbing effect but I don't think it's quite that severe.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
No.

I am hoping to put forward an alternative amendment to remove the referendum petition from the House and ensure referendums are called by bills only. Please let me know if you want to see it with a view to seconding.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If there is nothing explicitly sating otherwise only a moron would have no idea how to react to such a petition, I know the chair seems to have a dumbing effect but I don't think it's quite that severe.
Lol. Fair enough
0
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Nay, Saracen's Fez expect a PM soonish about your motion idea.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
No.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Aye.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
Aye, two referendums is a better number, the 50% rule is a ridiculous one, and it only makes sense that the speaker should be returning officer.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No.

I am hoping to put forward an alternative amendment to remove the referendum petition from the House and ensure referendums are called by bills only. Please let me know if you want to see it with a view to seconding.
(Original post by Rakas21)
Petitions should be bared from producing referenda full stop. Referenda should require acts of parliament.
Just want to draw your attention to the above.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Just want to draw your attention to the above.
You have a third.

...........

Nay to this amendment.
0
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
aye, more democracy y not
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
we don't need 2 referenda a term.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Aph)
we don't need 2 referenda a term.
We don't not need 2 referenda a term.

Maybe we should remove the limit and allow the speaker to decide if a referendum should be allowed
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Having seen Fez's amendment, there is one thing I really dislike. Aye to this then.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by joecphillips)
We don't not need 2 referenda a term.

Maybe we should remove the limit and allow the speaker to decide if a referendum should be allowed
voter fatigue and we would have the same referenda each term. I think that referenda should need a supermajority to ensure they are needed, especially binding ones
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

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (65)
15.44%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (43)
10.21%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (80)
19%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (61)
14.49%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (46)
10.93%
How can I be the best version of myself? (126)
29.93%

Watched Threads

View All
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