Referendum and Constitutional Reform

Now if commenting on today's referendum, you would think I would do it in advance, but I've only just got round to it...

Most of what has been said (by both sides) has been utter tosh. For some examples (probably mostly from the Yes campaign, because it winds me up more):

Today in the Guardian Timothy Garton Ash claims that reforming the voting system will fix all that is wrong with the current Parliament system. Will it obviously increase the power of Parliament over the Executive? Will it ensure MPs do not fiddle the expenses system? Will it increase engagement and encourage people to vote when they don't care about any of the candidates on the ballot? Will it solve the problem of what to do with the Upper House? And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green?

He is however, topped by one of the comments on his column though. Apparently, voting no to AV will "entrench Tory power in England until the end of time". Well actually, since 1945 there have been swings of over 5% on only three occasions. One of those occurred in 2010... and didn't give a Conservative majority! (The other two were 1997 and 1979 - bringing in Blair and Thatcher respectively.). Sounds like it's not the voting method deciding if the Government stays in!

On the No side, there has been rubbish too. AV is certainly not complicated - certainly not when compared to STV that almost anyone who has been a student recently will have voted in (nearly every Students' Union in the country uses it to elect their officers). The only genuine criticism I have seen for people understanding it was when it was first introduced in some Australian states, but the confusion mostly stemmed from the fact people didn't realise that they didn't have to rank all the candidates (in federal elections in Australia it is compulsory to vote, and to rank all the candidates in order of preference). Yes, it is more complex, but it isn't that hard!!

My ire next falls on Ekklesia, a Christian think tank, who have basically claimed that the Bible demands a change to AV. Now, last time I read it, there was very little in there about what voting system to use in a Parliamentary democracy. Instead, there is quite a lot of time spent, especially by this 1st Century AD jew who kept calling himself the "Son of Man", on how the best form of government is a theocracy called the "Kingdom of Heaven". But then WWJK? (What Would Jesus Know)

Now, enough with the ranting, a point of confusion. Apparently, this referendum (unlike the only other one in British history) is binding. I don't understand how that can be true, though I will accept it may require drastic measures to avoid it. Let me explain: the foundation of the constitution - yes we do have one, it's just not written down nicely together like the American one - is that Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign. If so, then a popular vote cannot bind them - or they are not sovereign - they should be able to pass a law that says that they will ignore the outcome of the referendum. Another cornerstone is that Parliament may not not bind its successors. Now in the event of a Yes vote (much as opinion polls suggest it is unlikely, consider the hypothetical), either under its sovereignty QinP can change the law to ignore the outcome or under the future binding principle, the Queen can dissolve Parliament before the change is implemented, and then the new Parliament (elected FPTP - no implementation) can decide it doesn't wish to follow the previous Parliament's decision. In the event of a No vote, sure the existing legislation is dropped, but that doesn't stop any MP who can get the Parliamentary time introducing a new bill that would introduce AV without a referendum.

Of course, the path above in the event of a Yes vote would create a constitutional crisis on par with the entire Royal Family joining the Ordinariate en masse, but...

Now, leaving all the poltiking aside, it is important that we vote. People have died to allow us today to have the freedom to choose our own government. Remember those who fell in the Second World War and the suffragettes, and put an X in a box, any box!

Aside from this referendum on a major constitutional change, there has been much talk lately of other reforms. Much of this seems to be to give the Deputy Prime Minister something to do that he thinks is important but is too complicated and uninteresting to go anywhere, but some is worthy of comment.

There has been talk about revision to the principles used to decide who should inherit the throne. Unfortunately, the Government seems a little unaware of the possible consequences of some of the changes. The two big highlights seem to be primogeniture and Roman Catholicism. Apparently, Mr. Clegg wishes to abolish primogeniture, and allow girls to inherit on an equal basis with boys, and wishes to abolish the prohibition on Roman Catholics inheriting the throne. That clearly means there are two mainstream parties now in Westminster who wish to review the Act of Union 1707 - the SNP and the Lib Dems. To clarify, the most recent piece of legislation that determines the application of these principles is not the widely touted Act of Settlement 1701, but the Act of Union - after all the latter was the piece of Law passed to join England and Scotland, and determine that they would forever share the same King (subject to the same principles above about sovereignty and successors). I'm not sure it was one of Nick Clegg's ambitions to discuss Scottish independence!

Aside from this oversight, the official reason behind the review is fairness and equality. I don't understand the logic that leads to a discussion about whether or not it is fair for a certain member of a family to do a job over another on religious or gender grounds, without also asking the question about whether we should continue to only offer the job to members of just one family!