Hence, giving people the power to choose the answer to a decision can be seen as sticking to the social contract. Other supporters can claim that important decisions effecting the constitution have to require extensive popular consent of the public. In using referendums it allows the executive to come across and strong and legitimate. For example in 1975, the government held a referendum to decide whether Britain should remain a member of the European Economic Community. In 1974 the Labour government had been divided but after the referendum was passed and the public elected to stay in the EEC it united the Labour government, thus, making the executive a strong one.
This means that referendums therefore can prevent disputes in government and secure a consensus decision so wider use of them would ensure that the number of disputes is reduced even further. They used referendums in this way in the 2011 referendum on whether to introduce AV to replace our current electoral system, as the government could not decide the public’s vote of ‘no’ on the issue allowed them to make the decision to stick with First Past the Post therefore moving away from the idea of electoral reform. They can also be used when an important constitutional change is being proposed. This means that people can have a say on an issue that directly affects the way they are governed. Referendums were used this way in the 1998 London referendum on whether to adopt an elected mayor.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
How far has the UK constitution reformed since 1997? Since 1997 the UK has seen some of the most drastic changes to the constitution since 1832 and some may even argue since Parliament became effectively sovereign in 1688. Devolution has been a very important factor to successfully reform the constitution and there are still plans to further reform the constitution by devolution. In 1997 the scottish referendum on whether or not there should be a Scottish Parliament was voted to go through so this first step to power in Scotland and constitutional reforms. The same referendum was submitted in Wales and in 1999 both Scotland and Wales had their own individual Parliaments.
These manufacturing methods can be replicated by other businesses in the countries and improve their ability to manufacture goods. This improved ability to manufacture within the country and should lead to an increase in the GDP of the country. This will improve the trade and relations between the country and many others. Also in some cases these MNC's will invest in the infrastructure of the country. This will improve the trading process for not only the company, but also the rest of the country.
than as being motivated by principles of direct democracy. At the time the labour party was very divided on the issue, causing the prime minister the problem of a divided cabinet, a problem contained through the use of a referendum as members of the cabinet would agree to the outcome of a referendum. In 1975 electorate voted roughly 2 to 1 ‘Yes’ in favour of remaining in the E.C. on a turnout of just under 65%. This was the first ever nationwide referendum.
In addition, the elections are held at regular intervals, which ensures that the representatives are accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, there is a pluralistic system which means that the electorate have a choice of candidates and political parties, regarded as an essential element of a genuine democracy. For example, in the General Election of May, 2010, the UK electorate had the opportunity to vote for candidates from minority parties, such as the Greens and UKIP, as well as the major parties such as Labour, Conservative and
“THE WIDER USE OF REFERENDUMS WOULD INCREASE PARTICIPATION?” TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT? A Referendum is a vote on a single issue put to a public ballot by the government of the day. Referendums offer a degree of direct democracy. They are generally framed in the form of a simple ‘yes/no’ question. Between 1973 and 1997, there were 4 referendums in Britain.
Initiatives are a form of direct democracy which allows referenda to be initiated by the citizens of a state (through a petition of registered voters where in California e.g. the initiative must have the number of valid signatures equal to 5% of the number of votes cast for the governor in the most recent election) Recall elections are a procedure that allows registered voters to petition for a public vote by which an elected official can be removed from office before the end of term. In most cases recalls are only permitted in cases of corruption, negligence or incompetence by the elected official. E-petitions are a simple way to influence government and parliament in the UK. One can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in the House of Commons.
Firstly, a codified constitution would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens of the state. Most British citizens do not understand the concept of the constitution, nor what the UK constitution entails. It is therefore an argument that having a codified constitution would raise public awareness and support for the government would grow. It would also enable the public and people in government to view the constitution whenever necessary for matters such as court cases, etc. This would encourage public involvement in politics and act as an improvement to our democratic society.