The “Stuttgart 21” Referendum 2011 in Germany, the Scotland 2014 referendum , the UK´s EU membership Ref 2016, the much-discussed Catalonia “Referendum” 2017 and the 2018 No – Billag Referendum in Switzerland. The future of railways, independence and the abolition of Radio and TV licence fees have been the issues of some of the most recognised referendums over the last seven years.
On 28 March 2018, the Chambers of Regions debate on “Regional referendum, a tool for democracy: challenges and risks” against this background presented a very diverse and very differing overview. It included engaged views from very different countries in the “Congress of Local and Regional Authorities” community of the Council of Europe.
A key player in these on-going Europe-wide discussions on referendums is the Council of Europe´s “Venice Commission”. Simona Granata-Menghini, Deputy Secretary of the “European Commission for democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (the Venice Commission)” made it very detailed and openly clear how her institution deals with referendums in Europe, what it demands and expects and which legal and political frameworks should be implemented and included: ”There are also some specific rules applicable to the referendum which mainly focus on free suffrage, more precisely on the freedom of voters to form an opinion. The most important are the following:
- Unity of content - there must exist an intrinsic connection between the various parts of each question put to the vote (except in the case of a total revision of a constitution)
- The public authorities must be neutral – while this requirement is not as stringent as in the case of elections, public authorities must not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning; the use of public funds by the authorities for campaigning purposes must be prohibited
- The authorities must provide objective information.
- The question put to the vote must be clear; it must not be misleading; it must not suggest an answer; electors must be informed of the effects of the referendum; voters must be able to answer the questions asked solely by yes, no or a blank vote
The Venice Commission’s guidelines specify that the effect of the referendum (legally binding or consultative) must be clearly specified in the Constitution or by law. But perhaps the most important principle that I wish to stress here is that the Rule of Law implies that “the use of the referendums must comply with the legal system as a whole, and especially the procedural rules”.”
She critically saw the establishment of referendums in some countries to fight political opponents: ”Referendums for lifting presidents are very dangerous”. She finished her intervention with reminding that : ”The Venice Commission, can advise on all referendums planned and established in Europe!
Marthe Fatin-Rouge Stafanini, Director of Research of the National Centre of scientific Research at Aix-Marseille Universit, France, in her expert speech presented an overview on roles referendums could and should play. She advised from her research that a legal framework should be decided to held any referendum. Then a dialogue should establish the purpose of the referendum and it should be made very clear which question should be asked that people could understand the referendum´s intention. She explained how different a referendum in Usbekistan or (very soon) the French Department of New Caledonia would be compared with e.g. environmental issues “refs” in Portugal or Spain. “In Spain”, she informed the delegates, “a regional referendum is not possible even if it would be demanded by regional institutions. It would not be complying with the Spanish constitution. Only the central state could decide to implement one”. In her final statement she allowed no doubt “that I see a referendum only as a complimentary tool which should not replace any democratic decision procedures in a national parliament.”
Stefano Bonaccini , President of then Emilia Romagna Region of Italy and the President of the Council European Municipalities and Regions presented a very current example: he explained that , a referendum had been established “to decide if 7 communities belonging to a neighbouring region - the Umbria region - should and could become part of his region - the Emilia Romagna region -”. People in these seven communities felt they belonged much more to Emilia Romagna and were better off there than staying intheir current region . Concerning the regional referendums Bonaccini referred to the successful negotiations he carried on, on behalf of his region, with the Italian state government in Rome, with a view to obtaining additional self-government competencies. He did so without organising a referendum, which would have been very expensive:. “asking peole if they are in favour of self-government is like asking a kid: do you love your mother ?” he said ! While this sounded like an agreeable version of a referendum for many delegates, the tone immediately changed when the well- known referendums on independence in Scotland and Catalonia came up in the chamber. While many Spanish delegates expressively made it very clear that the last “so-called”, they said, referendum in Catalonia has been illegal, against the constitution and certainly not “within the rule of law” the answer from Christina McKelvie, Scottish National Party member of the Scottish Parliament, sounded quite different. “Catalans have asked seventeen times for a referendum”, she said, and never got it. “Finally they had to react”. To fully understand this intervention it might be helpful to know that Scottish and Catalan independence supporters are closely linked, with Catalonia seeing the Scottish “Indy Ref1” as a blueprint how a nation- state and a regional Parliament should talk to each other and finally decide the purpose and the “to be asked” question of a referendum.
McKelvie made it very clear that even then a “clear” referendum outcome might not unite people: “Over the last 4 years the UK situation has changed the outcome of the Scottish “Indy” referendum. We have been told to vote NO (meaning staying in the UK) to stay in the EU to be forced after the UK´s EU membership referendum of being dragged out of the EU against our will”. Scotland with a majority voted to stay in the UK but with 62 % to remain in the EU, while the whole of the UK voted to leave the EU.
A very new and fresh view was introduced into this lively and very engaged debate from the various “Youth Delegates to the 34th Congress Session”. Isabelle Schneider, an academic intern at the Swiss representation of the Council of Europe”, nearly insisted to have a referendum to decide political “confrontations” and to engage and let people decide on political and/ or regional and local issues. “In the Canton where I come from,” she said, “we had nearly 52 referendums over the last decades. All of them had been on either national or local/regional issues inviting the “normal” people to decide and giving them a say”. The Swiss version of direct democracy, she informed the delegates at the Hemicycle, might be the only way to involve people in political processes and giving them a chance to be heard. Other Youth delegates, like Trainee lawyer Joao Ferreira from Portugal, University of Mannheim student Weihua Wang from Germany or Austrian Johannes Hasselsteiner, Employee of the “Regional Development and Citizen Participation” organisation, demanded new ideas to engage more and certainly younger people in any future referendum issues. While they all supported the idea of the referendum as a good tool to decide on national or local and regional issues they demanded new ways of participation. That should and must include the internet, they argued. New internet platforms should deliver unbiased and basic information on to be decided problems and discussions. “Better information would be needed”, Haselsteiner stated and asked the delegates to start to develop new tools with “access to neutral information, to prevent fake news undermining democracy”.
The final statement of UK delegate Andrew Dawson, a Councillor for Cheshire West and Chester summoned-up a lively, controversial but always respectful Congress´ debate on “Regional Referendum - a tool of referendum: challenges and risks ”: “Yes there is the risk of the wrong answer, but the more people appreciate that the decisions are real and have consequences , the more likely it is that votes will be cast”.
- Speech by Simona Granata-Menghni
- Video of the debate: FR - EN
** 34th Session of the Congress **
File 34th Session - Agenda – Videos and photos - Mediabox - Congress Mobile App - Twitter #COECongress
