[Addaway] Why this Referendum is anti-Democratic

Day 3,010, 14:31 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Addaway

Couldn't decide what to put for pictures so idk... Somerset?

Apologies for the wall of text + rant, will try to add some pictures to break it up soonish

This article isn’t about the specific merits of the arguments in the upcoming referendum on the proposed peace deal with the French, it’s about the concept of having a referendum in this process at all; and my concerns for the precedent that it sets.

First of all, I’m of the opinion that Representative Democracy and not Direct Democracy is the best way to govern the eUK. I think a dedicated group of representatives elected to represent and make decisions on behalf of the eUK can provide effective government. It’s also the way the game mechanics work- we continue to elect Congress Members despite the Dictatorship Module. To adopt a Direct Democracy approach of referendums that all UK citizens vote in is unnecessary for good governance.

From a purely theoretical standpoint I would oppose a referendum on apeace deal because it simply does not fit within the idea of Representative Democracy. The CP is accountable to Congress and it is Congress that should vote on whether to accept a treaty- as they have done for years without issue.

It’s true that you can sometimes have a referendum for issues of such magnitude as for it to be important that each citizen has their own opinion heard. This current deal may well fall into that category. But here’s the thing- should it be entirely up to the CP to decide when to call a referendum, what the question will be, who can vote, how long the voting will be and so on? Because that is what has happened with this current referendum. The Country President has unilaterally declared a referendum and totally bypassed Congress. That’s not democratic- the CP does not have the right to single-handedly declare when and on which subjects the eUK will hold referendums on.



Yes, Rathena was elected on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum (I think) but like all CP policies that doesn’t mean it just happens. If a CP pledges to NE Ireland and then wins the election , does that mean that the CP then has the right to unilaterally start a war without consulting Congress? No, and the same principle applies to this.

Just because a CP wins the election on a pledge to hold a referendum does not mean they have a unilateral right to strip Congress of its right to approve treaties

It is Congress’ duty to hold the CP to account and to scrutinise their plans, and it is a complete undermining of the system not to submit the plans for a referendum to Congress so that they could be approved in a considered fashion. Congress could have set out specific timings for the vote, and elgibility criteria to ensure that the result cannot be influenced by multi-accounts. None of this has been done by our CP.

What has happened is the CP has created a referendum of which she is in total control of. To this point it is the Executive that has determined every feature of the referendum process on a whim, and could easily change the process at any time it likes. This is, to me, an incredibly dangerous precedent to set.

Yes, I might get attacked for being ‘elitist’ and ‘not wanting to give the people a vote’. It’s very easy to make those arguments, but they are nonsense.

Congress is elected by eUK citizens to hold the CP to account and to take decisions in conjunction with the Executive. Congress is the only check on the power of the CP during a term, and we should not let it be so easily undermined.