DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON July 2018 REFERENDUMS ISBN: 978-1-903903- 83-4 Published by the Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ©The Constitution Unit, UCL July 2018 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published July 2018 1 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON REFERENDUMS 2 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums 3 Contents Lists of Tables, Figures and Boxes 4 Foreword 5 Commission members 6 Commission Secretariat 8 Executive Summary 9 Introduction 13 Part 1: Background Chapter 1 – The Use of Referendums Worldwide 19 Chapter 2 – The Use of Referendums in the UK 31 Chapter 3 – Regulating Referendums: History and Debates 47 Part 2: The Role of Referendums in Democracy Chapter 4 – Referendums and Democracy 57 Chapter 5 – Calling Referendums 71 Chapter 6 – Legislating for a Referendum 81 Chapter 7 – Preparation for a Referendum 90 Chapter 8 – The Referendum Question 101 Chapter 9 – Thresholds and Other Safeguards 110 Part 3: The Regulation of Referendum Campaigns Chapter 10 – The Role of Government in Referendum Campaigns 123 Chapter 11 – Lead Campaigners 134 Chapter 12 – Campaign Finance 145 Chapter 13 – Quality of Discourse 159 Chapter 14 – Regulation of Online Campaigning 178 Part 4: Implementation Chapter 15 – Implementing the Commission’s Recommendations 192 Conclusions and Recommendations 201 Appendix: List of Responses to Expert Consultation 210 Reference list 211 4 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums List of Tables, Figures and Boxes LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF BOXES 1.1. 19 2.1. 34 Frequency of national referendums in sovereign states, UK referendums that never happened by decade 2.2. 39 1.2. 20 Topics on which referendums in the UK are now legally State-wide referendums in stable democracies since required 1990, by country 5.1. 74 1.3. 22 The Danish rejective referendum Support for referendums around the world, 2014 7.1. 91 1.4. 23 The Scottish Constitutional Convention Change in support for referendums around the world, 7.2. 93 2004–14 Ireland’s Constitutional Convention and Citizens’ 1.5. 24 Assembly State-wide referendums in democratic countries since 7.3. 94 1990, excluding Switzerland, by topic Canada’s citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform 1.6. 28 7.4. 98 The process of decision-making in five recent Principles of citizens’ assembly design referendums around the world 7.5. 99 2.1. 43 The Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care Support for the use of referendums in the UK 9.1. 111 5.1. 78 Electorate thresholds in the 1979 devolution Success of citizen-initiated referendums in democratic referendums countries since 1990, excluding Switzerland 9.2. 112 10.1. 124 Turnout thresholds in Italy Government leaflet from 1975 referendum 10.1. 125 13.1. 171 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Referendum Communication from Vote Leave section 125 13.2. 171 Referendum Communication from Stronger In 10.2. 127 The UK government leaflet on the EU referendum LIST OF TABLES 11.1. 135 2.1. 32 Designation of lead campaigners at the 2016 EU National and regional referendums in the UK, 1973–2016 referendum 2.2. 44 11.2. 137 UK public attitudes to the use of referendums after the Designation of lead campaigners at the 2011 Welsh EU referendum devolution referendum 3.1. 51 11.3. 143 Principal deviations from PPERA in recent referendums Ofcom’s fit and proper person test 8.1. 105 12.1. 150 Options in the 1992/3 New Zealand electoral reform Allocation of public funding by the Dutch Referendum referendums Commission 8.2. 106 13.1. 163 Options in the 2015/16 New Zealand flag referendums Regulating truth in South Australia 9.1. 114 13.2. 165 Simulation applying threshold requirements to past UK Information provision in Ireland and New Zealand referendums 13.3. 167 11.1. 136 Citizen Initiative Reviews in Oregon Lead campaigners in referendums since 2000 14.1. 185 12.1. 147 Current restrictions on political advertising in the Grants available to lead campaigners at post-PPERA broadcast media referendums 15.1. 194 12.2. 148 Checklist for those considering calling for a referendum Spending limits for registered referendum campaigners at the 2016 EU referendum 13.1. 161 Public opinion on the conduct of the EU referendum campaign 5 Foreword The current legal framework for conducting referendums in the UK was laid down in 2000. It was based on the recommendations of two reports: of the Nairne Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which was co- sponsored by the Constitution Unit, in 1996; and of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in 1998. Twenty years and several referendums later, it is time for a fresh look. The world has moved on, not least through the rise of online campaigning. And we have much more experience of referendums – both in the UK and around the world – to learn from. The quality of the members who accepted an invitation to join a new Commission confirms the need to take stock. The five referendums that have been held under the current legislative framework, including the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the European Union, provide plenty of scope for reflection on the pros and cons of referendums and how to run them. Throughout our work we have been aware that recent experience has generated strong views about referendums themselves as well as about their subject-matter. Many people have sent us evidence or have attended one of the seminars we have held in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. That has been a great benefit and we are very grateful to them. But we have been equally aware of the danger of our work being unduly influenced by very recent debate which is still ongoing. We have done our best to learn from recent experience but to focus on the future and a wide range of possibly quite different circumstances. It falls to others to judge whether we have succeeded. The members of the Commission were not invited to take part because they were sure to be of one mind. As well as their expertise and relevant experience, it was expected that they would hold a variety of views. In the event, they have been a very easy group to chair because each member has been ready to express a personal view but has recognised the need to collaborate with others. We all owe a great debt to the team from the Constitution Unit: Meg Russell, Alan Renwick, Jess Sargeant and Edd Rowe. We would have made no progress without their knowledge of referendums in the UK and across the world and their skill and speed in preparing and revising draft papers on every aspect of our terms of reference. They played a full part in all our discussions but, whilst acknowledging how much we owe them, the members of the Commission accept full responsibility for the conclusions and recommendations in the report. Joe Pilling Chair of the Independent Commission on Referendums 6 Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums Commission Members Commission Chair: Sir Joseph Pilling KCB The Rt Rev. the Lord Eames OM Joe Pilling has previously served as both Director Robin Eames was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and General of the Prison Service and Permanent Secretary Primate of all Ireland from 1986 to 2006. He is an active of the Northern Ireland Office. Since leaving the civil Crossbench peer and a member of the Privileges and service in 2005 he has been involved in several reviews Conduct Committee of the House of Lords. Along with covering, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, the other church leaders, he had a key role in the peace 30 Years Rule and the Independent Press Standards process in Northern Ireland, where there was a Organisation. He is a current or former trustee of referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. several charities. Rt Hon Dame Cheryl Gillan MP Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP Cheryl Gillan has been Conservative Member of Dominic Grieve has been Conservative Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham since 1992. Parliament for Beaconsfield since 1997. He was Attorney Born in Cardiff, she was Secretary of State for Wales General for England and Advocate General for Northern (2010–12), overseeing the Welsh devolution referendum Ireland from 2010 to 2014. He had a career in law before of 2011. She is a member of the House of Commons entering politics and was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs 2008. He has been chair of parliament’s Intelligence and Committee, and represents the UK on the Parliamentary Security Committee since 2015, and also chairs the Assembly of the Council of Europe, where she is All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Rule of Law. Rapporteur for an inquiry into referendum rules. Sue Inglish Seema Malhotra MP Sue Inglish was Head of Political Programmes, Seema Malhotra has been Labour Member of Analysis, and Research at the BBC between 2005 and Parliament for Feltham and Heston since December 2015. Before joining the BBC, she worked for ITN 2011. She is a former management consultant who between 1983 and 2001, where amongst other roles worked for Accenture and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of an Investigation in Respect Of
    Report of an investigation in respect of - Vote Leave Limited - Mr Darren Grimes - BeLeave - Veterans for Britain Concerning campaign funding and spending for the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU 17 July 2018 1 Other formats For information on obtaining this publication in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission. Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity. 2 Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2 The decision to investigate ............................................................................. 9 3 The investigation .......................................................................................... 12 4 The investigation findings ............................................................................. 16 Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave ................................................... 16 Vote Leave’s spending limit ............................................................................. 21 Other issues with Vote Leave’s spending return ............................................. 24 BeLeave’s spending ........................................................................................ 25 Mr Grimes’ spending return ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on Public Petitions, Houses of the Oireachtas, Republic
    ^<1 AM p,I , .S' Ae RECEIVED r , ,1FEB2i2{ a Co GII C' CS, I ^'b' Via t\ SGIrbhis Thith an 01 ea htais @ Houses of the Oireachtas Service TITHE AN O^REACHTAZS . AN COMHCH01STE UM ACHAINtOCHA ON bPOBAL HOUSES OF THE OrREACHTAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PET^TiONS SUBM^SS^ON OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS - IRELAND ^NqUIRY INTO THE FUNCTIONS, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES . OF THE STANDING COMMITrEE ON ENv^RONMENT AND PUBLrc AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WESTERN AUSTRAL^A Houses of the Oireachtas Leinster House Kildare St Dublin 2 Do2 xR2o Ireland ,.,. February 2020 II'~ API ~~ ~, I -,/' -.<,, ,:; -.. t . Contents I . I n trod u ct io n ...,............................................................................................................ 4 2. Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Public Petitions 2 0 I I - 2 0 I 6 ..........................................................,.,,.....,.,,.,,,....................................... 5 3. Composition, Purpose, Powers of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversig ht a rid Pu blic Petitions 201 I- 2016. .................................... 6 3.2 The Joint sub-Committee on Pu blic Petitions 2011 '20/6 ................,..,,,. 7 3.3 The Joint Sub-Committee on the Ombudsman 2011-2016. ................... 9 4. Joint Committee on Public Petitions 2016 - 2020 ...................................,. 10 4.2. Functions of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 201.6-2020 .... 10 4.3. Powers of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 201.6-2020 ..... 10 Figu re I : Differences of remit between Joint Committees ........,................,. 12 5 . Ad mis si bi lity of P etitio n s ...................,.., . .................... ....,,,, ... ... ......,.,,,.,.,....... 14 5.2 . In ad missi bin ty of Petitio ns .,,,........,,,,,,,,.., ................... ..,,,........ ., .,. .................. Is 5.3. Consideration of Petitio ns by the Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures of Ratification of Mixed Agreements
    Directorate-General for the Presidency Relations with National Parliaments Legislative Dialogue Unit National Parliaments Background Briefing (November 2016) PROCEDURES OF RATIFICATION OF MIXED AGREEMENTS SUMMARY NATIONAL/FEDERAL REGIONAL POSSIBLE COUNTRY LEVEL LEVEL REFERENDUM Approval Chambers Approval Austria (AT) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Belgium (BE) ✔ 2/2 ✔ ✘ Bulgaria (BG) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Croatia (HR) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Cyprus (CY) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Czech Republic (CZ) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Denmark (DK) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Estonia (EE) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Finland (FI) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ France (FR) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Germany (DE) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Greece (EL) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Hungary (HU) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Ireland (IE) ✔ 1/2 ✘ ✔ Italy (IT) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Latvia (LV) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Lithuania (LT) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Luxembourg (LU) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Malta (MT) ✘ 0/1 ✘ ✘ The Netherlands (NL) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Poland (PL) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Portugal (PT) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ Romania (RO) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ Slovakia (SK) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✔ Slovenia (SI) ✔ 1/2 ✘ ✘ Spain (ES) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✘ Sweden (SE) ✔ 1/1 ✘ ✘ United Kingdom (UK) ✔ 2/2 ✘ ✔ 27/28 Member States 14/28 TOTAL 1 Member State 38/41 Federal Chambers Member States [email protected] B-1047 Brussels - Tel. +32 2 28 43821 SOURCES NOTE: The information provided in this document is the product of research into national constitutions of EU Member States, institutional documents, an academic study (Eschbach, Anna, University of Cologne, The Ratification Process in EU Member States, 2015), and information provided by representatives of the EU’s 28 national parliaments in November 2016. NATIONAL PROCEDURES OF MIXED AGREEMENT RATIFICATION Bicameral: National Council, Federal Council AUSTRIA (AT) Regional parliaments: n/a Overview: ­ The National Council in cooperation with the Federal Council must approve the ratification of the majority of mixed agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Guide
    A Guide to Brexit Terminology This glossary has been designed to explain some of the key terms used in relation to Brexit. At the end of the glossary are links to additional resources and originals of key documents. The Glossary is not designed to be an exhaustive list and the authors hope that you find the explanations of key terms helpful. The UK which voted to join the EU had a different constitution to the UK that voted to leave the EU. This is reflected by some of the terminology used in the glossary and the inclusion of reference to the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N |O| P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | A to Z of Brexit terms February 01 2019 version pg. 1 Advisory The Brexit referendum is often described as ‘only advisory’. The referendum was authorised and conducted under the European Union Referendum Act 2015. It is advisory because Parliament is sovereign and because the Act contained no enabling legislation. Enabling provisions are ones which explicitly state that Parliament is legally bound to implement the outcome of the referendum. Hence, Parliament was not legally obliged to enact the outcome of the Brexit referendum. In contrast, for countries with codified constitutions, the outcome of a referendum ‘may’, in some instances bind both parliament and the government to implement its result. In Britain, however, with an uncodified constitution, it is possible for the government to promise in advance that it would respect the result, but that promise would be only political and not legally binding as parliament cannot be bound be a previous parliament; it can change its mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Zuckerberg Inks Video Calls Deal with Skype
    BUSINESS WITH PERSONALITY HAVE AN ALE ZUCKERBERG INKS VIDEO OF A TIME CALLS DEAL WITH SKYPE ARTISAN BEER COMES TO THE A FIRST FOR FACEBOOK PAGE 3 CITY PAGE 22 Issue 1,419 Thursday 7 July 2011 www.cityam.com FREE Chancellor NEWS CORP FEARS on hacking target list ▲ MEDIA DELAY TO SKY BID BY STEVE DINNEEN CHANCELLOR George Osborne yester- ▲ MEDIA ANALYSIS l British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC day joined the unenviable roll-call of BY STEVE DINNEEN p 827.00 people targeted by News of the World 850 6 Jul phone hackers. NEWS Corp bosses yesterday feared 845 Police visited Osborne last night to they may be forced to delay the firm’s 840 tell him that his personal details multi billion pound bid for BSkyB, as 835 appeared on notes kept by convicted the toxic political and commercial fall- 830 criminal Glenn Mulcaire and shamed out of the phone hacking scandal con- 825 former News of the World royal editor tinued to gather pace. 820 Clive Goodman. Bankers close to the deal told City It is not clear if Osborne’s name 30 Jun 1 Jul 4 Jul 5 Jul 6 Jul A.M. that negotiations have ground to and number were added to the list a halt while both sides consider the before or after he became chancellor. effects the ongoing scandal could have ANALYSIS l News Corp A spokesman for the Osborne said: on the proposed takeover. Even if the $ 17.94 “George was very grateful to the 6 Jul bid is waved through by the govern- 18.50 police.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Democracy an Overview of the International IDEA Handbook © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2008
    Direct Democracy An Overview of the International IDEA Handbook © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2008 International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The map presented in this publication does not imply on the part of the Institute any judgement on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement of such boundaries, nor does the placement or size of any country or territory reflect the political view of the Institute. The map is created for this publication in order to add clarity to the text. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. Cover design by: Helena Lunding Map design: Kristina Schollin-Borg Graphic design by: Bulls Graphics AB Printed by: Bulls Graphics AB ISBN: 978-91-85724-54-3 Contents 1. Introduction: the instruments of direct democracy 4 2. When the authorities call a referendum 5 Procedural aspects 9 Timing 10 The ballot text 11 The campaign: organization and regulation 11 Voting qualifications, mechanisms and rules 12 Conclusions 13 3. When citizens take the initiative: design and political considerations 14 Design aspects 15 Restrictions and procedures 16 Conclusions 18 4. Agenda initiatives: when citizens can get a proposal on the legislative agenda 19 Conclusions 21 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Review of Jersey Members' Remuneration Process
    STATES OF JERSEY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF JERSEY MEMBERS’ REMUNERATION PROCESS Presented to the States on 27th October 2020 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee STATES GREFFE 2020 R.121 2 REPORT The Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) presented the ‘States Members’ Remuneration Review Body: Recommendations for Remuneration beyond the 2022 General Election (R.89/2019)’ report in July 2019 (the ‘SMRRB Report’). PPC had a number of questions about the methodology that the States Members’ Remuneration Review Body (SMRRB’) used in the SMRRB Report and also queried whether the arrangements for setting States Members’ pay were in line with international best practice. As a result, PPC commissioned Dr. Hannah White OBE to undertake an independent review into the Jersey Members’ remuneration process (the ‘Review’) at a cost of £2,500. The Review is published with this document as an Appendix. PPC records its thanks to Dr. White for undertaking the Review. The terms of reference for the Review were: 1. To conduct a paper-based review of the current system for determining the remuneration of Members of the States (including the most recent report of the SMRRB); 2. To examine the equivalent systems used by relevant comparator legislatures (especially smaller and sub-national, ideally including Guernsey, Isle of Man, Westminster, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Australia and Canada); and 3. To make recommendations. PPC intends to consider how to respond to the recommendations provided in the Review in due course. R.121/2020 APPENDIX Independent review of Jersey Members’ remuneration process Dr Hannah White, July 2020 Background to this review On 22 July 2019, the Procedures and Privileges Committee (PPC) presented to the Jersey States the latest report of the States Members’ Remuneration Review Body (SMRRB): Recommendations for remuneration beyond the 2022 general election.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Layout 1
    Friday 15 International Friday, July 26, 2019 Britain new leader rejects ‘unacceptable’ Brexit deal Johnson urged EU leaders to rethink their opposition LONDON: Britain’s new Prime Minister Boris ing the EU after 46 years without an agreement will Johnson yesterday called the current Brexit deal be less painful than economists warn. The markets negotiated with the EU “unacceptable” and set were relieved by the appointment of former preparations for leaving the bloc without an agree- Deutsche Bank Sajid Javid as finance chief. The ment as a “top priority” for the government. In a pound held steady against the dollar and euro as pugnacious debut in parliament, the former London traders waited for Johnson’s first policy moves. mayor urged EU leaders to rethink their opposition Other appointments were more divisive. Brexit to renegotiating the deal. hardliner Dominic Raab became foreign secretary After installing a right-wing government follow- and Jacob Rees-Mogg - leader of a right-wing ing a radical overhaul, Johnson doubled down on faction of Conservatives who helped bring about his promise to lead Britain out of the EU by Octo- May’s demise - as the government’s parliament ber 31 at any cost. In case of a no-deal exit, he also representative. New interior minister Priti Patel threatened to withhold the £39 billion ($49 billion) has previously expressed support for the death divorce bill that Britain has previously said it owes penalty and voted against same-sex marriage. The the EU and instead spend the money for prepara- Labor opposition-backing Mirror newspaper tions for leaving with no agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Revival of Bicameralism
    The Strange Revival of Bicameralism Coakley, J. (2014). The Strange Revival of Bicameralism. Journal of Legislative Studies, 20(4), 542-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 Published in: Journal of Legislative Studies Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2014 Taylor & Francis. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:01. Oct. 2021 Published in Journal of Legislative Studies , 20 (4) 2014, pp. 542-572; doi: 10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 THE STRANGE REVIVAL OF BICAMERALISM John Coakley School of Politics and International Relations University College Dublin School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Queen’s University Belfast [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a surprising reversal of the long-observed trend towards the disappearance of second chambers in unitary states, with 25 countries— all but one of them unitary—adopting the bicameral system.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008
    Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008 Markus Schmidgen democracy international is a network promoting direct democracy. Our basic goal is the establishment of direct democracy (initiative and referendum) as a complement to representative democracy within the European Union and in the nation states. We also work on the general democratisation of the European Union, democratic reform and more direct and participatory democracy worldwide. http://www.democracy-international.org Written by Markus Schmidgen Layout: Ronald Pabst Proof-reading (contents):, Gayle Kinkead, Ronald Pabst, Thomas Rupp Proof-reading (language): Sheena A. Finley, Warren P. Mayr Advice: Dr. Klaus Hofmann, Bruno Kaufmann, Frank Rehmet Please refer all questions to: [email protected] Published by democracy international V 0.9 (4.9.2008) Evaluation of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon Treaty, June 2008 I Introduction This report examines the process of the Irish CONTENT referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. The referendum was held on June 12, 2008 and was the only referendum on this treaty. The evaluation is I INTRODUCTION .......................................... 3 based on the criteria set by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRIE). These criteria are internationally recognized as standards to II SETTING...................................................... 4 measure how free and fair a referendum process is conducted. This enables the reader to compare the II.1 Background ................................................... 4 Irish Lisbon referendum to other referendums and to identify the points that could be improved as well II.2 Actors ............................................................. 4 as those that are an example to other nations. II.3 Evaluation...................................................... 7 We at Democracy International and our European partners have already published a series of reports on the EU constitutional referenda of 2005: Juan III CONCLUSION.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • States of Jersey
    STATES OF JERSEY AMENDMENT OF THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE STATES OF JERSEY TO PROVIDE FOR POLITICAL PARTIES Lodged au Greffe on 11th December 2020 by Senator S.Y. Mézec STATES GREFFE 2020 P.166 PROPOSITION THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion − that the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey should be amended to take into account that members of the States Assembly may choose to organise themselves within political parties, and to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to investigate and bring forward the necessary amendments that are appropriate to facilitate this by the end of 2021. SENATOR S.Y. MÉZEC Page - 2 P.166/2020 REPORT “Criteria for the formation of parliamentary party groups, and their rights and responsibilities in the Legislature, shall be clearly stated in the Rules” – Section 4.2.1 of the Commonwealth Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures1 Whether Jersey further develops into a party political system is ultimately a matter for the electorate. But at the last two general elections, enough members of the public decided that they wished to be represented by States Members who are affiliated to a party, to end up with some being elected. Yet those members elected have not had it recognised in any form by the procedures of the Assembly that they are affiliated to a party and conduct their work on behalf of their constituents on that basis. This proposition asks that the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) be tasked with investigating the appropriateness of bringing forward any amendments to Standing Orders to enable the recognition that some elected members will be affiliated with a party, and outline their rights and responsibilities, as per the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s (CPA) recommended benchmarks.
    [Show full text]