Turn on thread page Beta

B1338 - Capital Punishment (Referendum) Bill 2018 watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Mr Speaker

    We had many debates about capital punishments and there have been many attempts to reintroduce capital punishments on mhoc. Whilst I agreed with capital punishments I'm not sure if we should be wasting money on a referendum. I believe we are capped at one referendum per term on TSR? (someone create me if I'm wrong) so I do not wish to waste this referendum on this and reserve it for something else.

    So I'll abstain for now.
    The idea that we are capped to one referendum in incorrect, that used to be the case, however, QQ passed an amendment that raised this to two, meaning another referendum would be possible after this one this term, if the house wished for one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    *Correct. (that was ironic:eviltongue:)

    and I believe you are correct. That said, the only other issue that I can see a popular referendum for is monarchy, which MHoC has debated to death (as a topic) compared to this.

    This is :tsr2: Everything is a waste of time.
    As I said to Mr T, the GD was amended to two referenda per term since the last attempt to pass this.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Connor27)
    As I said to Mr T, the GD was amended to two referenda per term since the last attempt to pass this.
    Thought that amendment failed.:hmmm:
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The idea that we are capped to one referendum in incorrect, that used to be the case, however, QQ passed an amendment that raised this to two, meaning another referendum would be possible after this one this term, if the house wished for one.
    Nonetheless, given the amount of time a referendum actually takes up, I can't see it being desirable to have a second one this term. In any case, we're about half way through term by now so it's hardly a long wait to hold one on another topic should this one be a success (in terms of activity growth and widening participation, that is).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    To those who claim that it would be "too costly", how many of you also support another EU referendum which would also be costly?

    As for it being advisory, is that so you can all say "**** what the people want, I disagree" if they give the answer you don't like?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Nonetheless, given the amount of time a referendum actually takes up, I can't see it being desirable to have a second one this term. In any case, we're about half way through term by now so it's hardly a long wait to hold one on another topic should this one be a success (in terms of activity growth and widening participation, that is).
    When was the first one? :confused:

    Regardless, the better line of argument is that this fails the "Referendums should relate to real life constitutional matters" which this does not
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When was the first one? :confused:
    That statement being on the assumption that this referendum were to go ahead.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    DayneD89: Since the only meaningful feedback on this has been to make it advisory, which I don’t think is a productive idea; can this go to division tomorrow please?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    For a TSR referendum, I'll support this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Should be advisory. But other than that, I don't really have a reason to oppose this... which I find surprising considering the author

    Refurendums are always "advisory" and yet followed through anyway. All refurendums are just a joke now, especially with the brexit ref. Regardless, I'll vote aye anyway simply because I think it should be reinstated for crimes like high treason against the crown and state.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Nay, an expensive referendum that nobody has demanded for and the verdict of the referendum is quite clear.

    It will be a waste of time.
    'An expensive referendum', Says someone who has a picture of Tony Blair who took us into an illegal, expensive war.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay- There is no strong evidence to support that Capital Punishment is an effective deterrent against committing serious crimes;

    https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/te...es/JLpaper.pdf

    Capital Punishment in this sense can only be regarded as state sanctioned revenge, and state sanctioned murder of potentially innocent people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I have changed my mind regarding this and have instead decided to send it to a second reading, in order to implement a concession to the people who have asked for an advisory referendum.

    Credit to 04MR17 for the idea on offsite communications, it is a good compromise that I find acceptable.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I have changed my mind regarding this and have instead decided to send it to a second reading, in order to implement a concession to the people who have asked for an advisory referendum.

    Credit to 04MR17 for the idea on offsite communications, it is a good compromise that I find acceptable.
    So basically you've chickened out and are trying to secure a debate nobody is interested in by making it so the outcome doesn't matter? If I had a vote that would have me switching the other way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So basically you've chickened out and are trying to secure a debate nobody is interested in by making it so the outcome doesn't matter? If I had a vote that would have me switching the other way.
    I can assure my right honourable friend that the amendment doesn’t make the referendum fully advisory, as he knows, I am firmly opposed to that principle.

    I urge him to wait and see the second reading this evening before making further judgment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I can assure my right honourable friend that the amendment doesn’t make the referendum fully advisory, as he knows, I am firmly opposed to that principle.

    I urge him to wait and see the second reading this evening before making further judgment.
    I might also remind you, and the house, and most importantly the speaker that the proposed referendum doesn't meet the requirements for a full referendum and as such should be run in the was such that the division results are the result of the referendum.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I will not be able to vote in favour of this if it is advisory in any capacity; it would be ridiculous to not see this pass into law if a majority of people voted for it in a referendum and this bill should function as such.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I might also remind you, and the house, and most importantly the speaker that the proposed referendum doesn't meet the requirements for a full referendum and as such should be run in the was such that the division results are the result of the referendum.
    Out of interest, how would it need to be formatted to meet the requirements for a full referendum?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    I will not be able to vote in favour of this if it is advisory in any capacity; it would be ridiculous to not see this pass into law if a majority of people voted for it in a referendum and this bill should function as such.



    Out of interest, how would it need to be formatted to meet the requirements for a full referendum?
    Jammy is making reference to the idea that the GD stipulates that referendums “must relate to real life constitutional issues.” Jammy believes that this is not a constitutional issue.

    In response to that, I would argue that because Magna Carta (document that outlined habeas corpus and therefore set precedent for all legal sentencing in this country) is a part of our uncodified constitution, therefore this does qualify as a constitutional issue.

    If that doesn’t satisfy Jammy, I would say that the clause that he is obsessing over is from a non-binding section of the guidance document, it is just that, guidance, and Dayne is by no means bound to follow it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Jammy is making reference to the idea that the GD stipulates that referendums “must relate to real life constitutional issues.” Jammy believes that this is not a constitutional issue.

    In response to that, I would argue that because Magna Carta (document that outlined habeas corpus and therefore set precedent for all legal sentencing in this country) is a part of our uncodified constitution, therefore this does qualify as a constitutional issue.

    If that doesn’t satisfy Jammy, I would say that the clause that he is obsessing over is from a non-binding section of the guidance document, it is just that, guidance, and Dayne is by no means bound to follow it.
    It's an interesting argument to make, because in the absence of a single codified constitution there is no clear and indisputable way of determining what is and is not a constitutional matter.

    For example, the upcoming referendum on abortion in Ireland is on a constitutional matter, as was the referendum they had on gay marriage. Whilst I'm no expert on the contents of the Irish constitution, it would be far from a surprise, were we modelling the Dáil, for capital punishment to also be a constitutional matter.

    It follows therefore that it is hard to rule (not necessarily hard to argue, but hard to rule against the expressed wishes of the House should this pass), in the absence of a codified constitution or a clearly defined set of laws which indisputably make up the British 'constitution', that this is not a constitutional matter.

    In any case this is an incredibly technical dispute to be having, and the expressed wishes of the House in voting on what has clearly been identified as a proposal for a TSR referendum ought to overrule a disputable line of the GD. Members should make their decision based upon the merits of holding a TSR referendum, and in my view their expressed wishes should, CT approval if necessary notwithstanding, be honoured.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: February 21, 2018
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

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

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