Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A197 - Multiple Referenda Amendment 2017 Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Multiple Referenda Amendment 2017

    Proposer: The Rt Hon. 04MR17 MP
    Seconders: The Rt Hon. TheDefiniteArticle MP, The Rt Hon. AfcWimbledon2 MP, The Hon. Tommy1Boy MP, The Rt Hon. CheeseIsVeg MP

    Remove under section 21 of the Guidance document:

    "7) No more than 1 referendum may be called in a single term of parliament.
    7.1) The Speaker may reject a referendum on the grounds that it is significantly similar to a previous referendum that has been held within the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)."

    And replace with:

    "7) The Speaker may reject a referendum on the grounds that it is significantly similar to a previous referendum that has been held within the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)."

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Most of us agree that the House requires more activity and wider interest, referenda are a good opportunity to extend the profile of the House, and we shouldn't limit this to once a term, as complient with part 2 of this section: "Referendums will have to be approved by the Speaker and Community team before taking place." this will still stand. So since I am assuming that the clause was originally to avoid too many referenda, testing the patience of the electorate, the speaker/CT are still able to reject referenda on these grounds. Having more than one referendum per term allows the house to not appear too focused on a single issue (e.g. republicanism).



    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is a good amendment but it might be worth setting a cap of sorts, even if it's quite a high one
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I reject the idea that only one referendum should be allowed. I agree with the honourable Quamquam123, it would be better to cap the amount at least or have a criteria in place.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    One referendum is more than enough for one term, it takes up quite a lot of time (and there are not many topics worthy of a referendum also, and so this may exhaust them at a far faster rate).
    Nay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I like the idea of this as a way to increase TSR's awareness of the MHoC, and to boost activity within the house. However, I share the Rt. Hon. member LifeIsFine's concerns about us possibly exhausting the issues on which referenda can be held. I'll need to listen to more of the debate before I can make a decision.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I really like this idea

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is a good amendment but it might be worth setting a cap of sorts, even if it's quite a high one
    but might abstain because a cap of some description would be better than none
    Spoiler:
    Show

    QQ :woo:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    One referendum is more than enough for one term, it takes up quite a lot of time (and there are not many topics worthy of a referendum also, and so this may exhaust them at a far faster rate).
    Nay.
    100% this.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emily Porter)
    I like the idea of this as a way to increase TSR's awareness of the MHoC, and to boost activity within the house. However, I share the Rt. Hon. member LifeIsFine's concerns about us possibly exhausting the issues on which referenda can be held.
    This nicely sums up my stance on this.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like it. We're not a direct democracy.

    (Nay)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To those talking about caps - there is a natural cap which is what the CT will allow. Everything so far indicates that 1 per term is perhaps that limit already, however in the future it might change, and it instead allows the CT and Speakership to be a little more clever and creative with how referenda might work.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is a good amendment but it might be worth setting a cap of sorts, even if it's quite a high one
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I reject the idea that only one referendum should be allowed. I agree with the honourable Quamquam123, it would be better to cap the amount at least or have a criteria in place.
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    One referendum is more than enough for one term, it takes up quite a lot of time (and there are not many topics worthy of a referendum also, and so this may exhaust them at a far faster rate).
    Nay.
    (Original post by Emily Porter)
    I like the idea of this as a way to increase TSR's awareness of the MHoC, and to boost activity within the house. However, I share the Rt. Hon. member LifeIsFine's concerns about us possibly exhausting the issues on which referenda can be held. I'll need to listen to more of the debate before I can make a decision.
    To all those who have raised concerns, I point you towards Afcwimbledon2's response, which I argued in the notes to this amendment. The Speakership and CT keep their control over whether to accept a referendum or not. If there are too many referenda called, the Speakership and CT can say no for that reason. Due to the authority which the GD gives them over this, there is no real need for a definitive cap.
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    To those talking about caps - there is a natural cap which is what the CT will allow. Everything so far indicates that 1 per term is perhaps that limit already, however in the future it might change, and it instead allows the CT and Speakership to be a little more clever and creative with how referenda might work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I do not want multiple referenda in any parliamentary term. It makes the House think carefully about what to have a referendum on, having a limit of one.

    Nor would I wish to rule out a second referenda on an individual issue in the next Parliament if that was the wishes of the House. If we had a majority to have a second referenda on membership of the EU, we should be able to choose this, for example.

    Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Again, what is it with the **** grammar?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Multiple Referenda Amendment 2017

    Proposer: The Rt Hon. 041MR17 MP
    Seconders: The Rt Hon. TheDefiniteArticle MP, The Rt Hon. AfcWimbledon2 MP, The Hon. Tommy1Boy MP, The Rt Hon. CheeseIsVeg MP

    Remove under section 21 of the Guidance document:

    "7) No more than 1 referendum may be called in a single term of parliament.
    7.1) The Speaker may reject a referendum on the grounds that it is significantly similar to a previous referendum that has been held within the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)."

    And replace with:

    "7) The Speaker may reject a referendum on the grounds that it is significantly similar to a previous referendum that has been held within the last three parliamentary terms (including the current term)."

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Most of us agree that the House requires more activity and wider interest, referenda are a good opportunity to extend the profile of the House, and we shouldn't limit this to once a term, as complient with part 2 of this section: "Referendums will have to be approved by the Speaker and Community team before taking place." this will still stand. So since I am assuming that the clause was originally to avoid too many referenda, testing the patience of the electorate, the speaker/CT are still able to reject referenda on these grounds. Having more than one referendum per term allows the house to not appear too focused on a single issue (e.g. republicanism).

    Rakas, could I request that for the next stage, my name get spelt correctly por favor?
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Again, what is it with the **** grammar?
    Where?:curious:
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, referendums are a b****isation of the Westminster Parliamentary model.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Rakas, could I request that for the next stage, my name get spelt correctly por favor?
    Where?:curious:
    Sorted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine if we'd had a Brexit referendum and then a referendum on UBI in the same year. Which do you think would get all the media attention?

    One referendum per term, nay.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I second Gladstone's comments.

    Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Rakas, could I request that for the next stage, my name get spelt correctly por favor?
    Where?:curious:
    Referendum is a Latin gerund, referenda is only a word because there are so many idiots who try to look smart.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 26, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.