Strands #248 “Strumming Right...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Should Eu Citizens Living In Scotland Qualify To Vote In Any Future Scottish Eu Independence Referendum, After Brexit?
80 Answers
Having Scottish independence referendum at the same time as UK negotiating Brexit complicates & hinders negotiations with the EU. Surely once UK left EU, EU citizens living in Scotland should not qualify to vote in any Scottish Independence referendum, unlike in 2014.
1. Only Westminster Parliament (not devolved Parliaments) has the legislative competence whether to allow (with the approval of the monarch) an independent referendum to any home nation (like Scotland).
It is also for Westminster Parliament to decide on (i) the wording of the referendum question (ii) date & (iii) suffrage franchise of voters in the independence referendum.
2. The franchise of voters for any future independence referendum (should they ever occur again) should be only be for British Citizens currently living in Scotland and expats (i.e. British citizens born in Scotland, but not currently living in Scotland). Scottish residents that were able to vote in the last Scottish independence referendum in 2014 included current Scottish residents who were: British citizens, commonwealth students & workers, Irish citizen, EU citizens living Scotland at the time.
3. A 60% majority rule in a referendum should also apply to all referendum that involve the constitutional break-up of UK.
Examples of supermajority (or a qualified majority) voting in a democratic process are:
:: Article Five of the US Constitution for example states: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .US States can also propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law" Goodbye.
:: According to the Danish Constitution, the Danish Parliament may delegate specific parts of the country's sovereignty to international authorities, provided that five-sixths of its members approve of the bill.
:: In South Korea, the approval of three-fifths of legislators is required before a bill can be put to a vote in the National Assembly.
1. Only Westminster Parliament (not devolved Parliaments) has the legislative competence whether to allow (with the approval of the monarch) an independent referendum to any home nation (like Scotland).
It is also for Westminster Parliament to decide on (i) the wording of the referendum question (ii) date & (iii) suffrage franchise of voters in the independence referendum.
2. The franchise of voters for any future independence referendum (should they ever occur again) should be only be for British Citizens currently living in Scotland and expats (i.e. British citizens born in Scotland, but not currently living in Scotland). Scottish residents that were able to vote in the last Scottish independence referendum in 2014 included current Scottish residents who were: British citizens, commonwealth students & workers, Irish citizen, EU citizens living Scotland at the time.
3. A 60% majority rule in a referendum should also apply to all referendum that involve the constitutional break-up of UK.
Examples of supermajority (or a qualified majority) voting in a democratic process are:
:: Article Five of the US Constitution for example states: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .US States can also propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law" Goodbye.
:: According to the Danish Constitution, the Danish Parliament may delegate specific parts of the country's sovereignty to international authorities, provided that five-sixths of its members approve of the bill.
:: In South Korea, the approval of three-fifths of legislators is required before a bill can be put to a vote in the National Assembly.
Answers
I can see the sense on having greater than a simple majority to change the status quo on major national issues. The system needs some hysteresis to prevent it flopping from one state to another. A few votes move and suddenly the majority tips in the other direction. All change. Then a few votes move the other way and we are off again. All change. But that criteria...
13:39 Sat 05th Aug 2017
Ha ! I like the US constitution bit
what was the question ?
who will vote in a future democratic contest ( I cant say election )
well the answer is: it will depend on the act setting up the future vote and what that act says about who can vote
(answer for a general election - it depends on the Representation of the People Act in force at the time and NOT EU law)
there
two answer for the price of one
can we talk about something else please
Look no paste job here either
Hahaha I missed the bit about the fount of democracy - one South Korea ! o god keep on posting
what was the question ?
who will vote in a future democratic contest ( I cant say election )
well the answer is: it will depend on the act setting up the future vote and what that act says about who can vote
(answer for a general election - it depends on the Representation of the People Act in force at the time and NOT EU law)
there
two answer for the price of one
can we talk about something else please
Look no paste job here either
Hahaha I missed the bit about the fount of democracy - one South Korea ! o god keep on posting
"3. A 60% majority rule in a referendum should also apply to all referendum that involve the constitutional break-up of UK."
Why?
Why should one side of the argument (i.e. retaining the status quo) have a considerable advantage over the other (voting for change)? If such a condition should exist why should it be for retaining the status quo and not for enabling change?
The idea of democracy is (for the moment) that the decision of the majority (i.e. 50% + 1) of those voting prevails. Why has this idea of 60% or whatever suddenly gained a hold? Is it because the 50% + 1 are perhaps increasingly likely to vote the "wrong" way?
Why?
Why should one side of the argument (i.e. retaining the status quo) have a considerable advantage over the other (voting for change)? If such a condition should exist why should it be for retaining the status quo and not for enabling change?
The idea of democracy is (for the moment) that the decision of the majority (i.e. 50% + 1) of those voting prevails. Why has this idea of 60% or whatever suddenly gained a hold? Is it because the 50% + 1 are perhaps increasingly likely to vote the "wrong" way?
I don't understand the question. Scotland is part of the UK, they may choose at some point to leave the UK. The UK has already started the process of leaving the EU. Either way Scotland will be out of the EU anyway. If they leave the UK at any time they will be out of the EU and would have to apply separately to join if they then wanted to join the EU.
Well if you want a 60% rule then brexit is out of the window. No doubt once the oil has all been squandered by Westminster Scotland will get independence. Finally England is always wailing on what a drain the Scots are on their economy so why not cast us adrift. Unfortunately too many unionist Scots have Stockholm Syndrome, believing the lies the MSM promote.
"Why should one side of the argument (i.e. retaining the status quo) have a considerable advantage over the other (voting for change)? If such a condition should exist why should it be for retaining the status quo and not for enabling change?"
As to the details of the question -- well, let's try to set the obvious recent referendum on the EU aside, as it's obvious that any discussion on how referenda should work might be influenced by your perspective on that. Obviously I'm annoyed that a rule that could, and perhaps should, have been in place wasn't and allowed something to happen that I didn't want -- but, to be clear, I accepted the result at the time, and when I voted it was in an understanding of the rules and the potential consequences, and I am not attempting to undermine the legitimacy of that referendum.
Still, the fact is that most countries that have referendums as a constitutional norm tend to have rules alongside to effectively demand that serious changes can't be imposed just based on 50%+1. The "status quo" is protected because -- well, because it seems to be common sense that if you are going to implement serious changes then you had better be as sure as possible that the country is on-side with those changes. That means that you could require a reasonably high turnout (not really an issue in 2016, as it was about 72% I think); or some sort of enhanced majority; or a supermajority in another sense.
In Switzerland, where referenda are just a part of the system, the minimum turnout requirement for a positive result to be implemented is 40% (so not outrageously high). The majority requirement is still only 50%+1 but (perhaps in order to protect less populous regions from the "tyranny of the majority", in a similar spirit to the electoral college of the US) there also has to be a majority of the cantons in favour of the proposal for it to pass. If the rule had applied in the UK then -- well, it would depend on what our equivalent of "Cantons" was as to how it would have impacted things.
But essentially the aim of requiring more stringent conditions for referenda isn't to stifle the electorate from getting what they want but to try and ensure that significant national changes have broad popular support across the entire country. Perhaps because the UK doesn't really do referendums, except when it's politically convenient (the three most recent have been, essentially, to try and get the Lib Dems into a coalition, to satiate the SNP and get them to shut up, and to bring UKIP-leaning voters back to the fold in 2015 and take on the Eurosceptic Tories), then we never really got around to writing rules that are, in fact, the standard across those democracies that hold referendums.
There are a few other arguments either against referenda altogether, or at least in favour of tightening the conditions for victory for the "change things" side, although some of them stray a little too far into the "Hitler did it so we shouldn't" argument.
As to the details of the question -- well, let's try to set the obvious recent referendum on the EU aside, as it's obvious that any discussion on how referenda should work might be influenced by your perspective on that. Obviously I'm annoyed that a rule that could, and perhaps should, have been in place wasn't and allowed something to happen that I didn't want -- but, to be clear, I accepted the result at the time, and when I voted it was in an understanding of the rules and the potential consequences, and I am not attempting to undermine the legitimacy of that referendum.
Still, the fact is that most countries that have referendums as a constitutional norm tend to have rules alongside to effectively demand that serious changes can't be imposed just based on 50%+1. The "status quo" is protected because -- well, because it seems to be common sense that if you are going to implement serious changes then you had better be as sure as possible that the country is on-side with those changes. That means that you could require a reasonably high turnout (not really an issue in 2016, as it was about 72% I think); or some sort of enhanced majority; or a supermajority in another sense.
In Switzerland, where referenda are just a part of the system, the minimum turnout requirement for a positive result to be implemented is 40% (so not outrageously high). The majority requirement is still only 50%+1 but (perhaps in order to protect less populous regions from the "tyranny of the majority", in a similar spirit to the electoral college of the US) there also has to be a majority of the cantons in favour of the proposal for it to pass. If the rule had applied in the UK then -- well, it would depend on what our equivalent of "Cantons" was as to how it would have impacted things.
But essentially the aim of requiring more stringent conditions for referenda isn't to stifle the electorate from getting what they want but to try and ensure that significant national changes have broad popular support across the entire country. Perhaps because the UK doesn't really do referendums, except when it's politically convenient (the three most recent have been, essentially, to try and get the Lib Dems into a coalition, to satiate the SNP and get them to shut up, and to bring UKIP-leaning voters back to the fold in 2015 and take on the Eurosceptic Tories), then we never really got around to writing rules that are, in fact, the standard across those democracies that hold referendums.
There are a few other arguments either against referenda altogether, or at least in favour of tightening the conditions for victory for the "change things" side, although some of them stray a little too far into the "Hitler did it so we shouldn't" argument.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.