A referendum on the EU constitution?

[ewx]

Apparently Peter Hain thinks not. As such, The Economist remarks:

Given that the government has called 34 referendums (mostly about mayors) since 1997, it seems odd to draw the line at the biggest constitutional issue to have come before the country for decades.

Referendums are like security reviews (or is it the other way around?); if they don't fail occasionally they you don't know that they're doing their job.

Comments

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

referendums is an ugly word, but seems to be the prefered plural in government text. Google has slightly more hits for "referenda".

Not sure yet; I don't yet know if it's a big enough change to get excited about. A German coworker told me the other day that it's a non-issue in Germany.

One would have thought that exactly the time that a referendum should be called is when the result isn't obvious in advance.

Mobbsy isn't a politician ;^>

[(Anonymous)]

(Hiya Mobbsy and Richard, by the way - Eddy)

Clash of meaning with `should'. If referenda were part of a process of democratic government, by which the electorate express an opinion, then indeed the right time for one is when the result isn't obvious in advance.

However, referenda are called by governments, so their function is to enable politicians to get what they want. Therefore they are called whenever the government is most confident of getting the answer they want.

This is why Norway is likely to call yet another referendum on joining the EU some time soon - the polls are presently pro-EU - rather than (say) waiting for the effects of the EUCD or imminent software patent decision to have pissed the electorate off.

For bonus cynic points, notice that the government will continue holding referenda, at intervals of a few years, until it gets the answer it wants. That will be the last referendum on the subject.

(ooh look - the spell-checker doesn't like referenda)