IOM Referendums a suggestion

[DemocracyIOM]

Most people seem to think that the proposed Referendum on Assisted Dying is simply not needed and is, in fact, simply a brazen attempt by Tynwald to abdicate any and all responsibility for introducing perfectly sensible assisted dying legislation. 

I note that when New Zealand did a referendum on the same subject in 2020 they linked their referendum on the Euthanasia Bill to a referendum on legalizing cannabis. One failed to be passed (cannabis) and one (the Euthanasia Bill) went through on a public vote. Surely we should link in something like this if Referendum's are all of a sudden going to be such important mechanisms of democracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_euthanasia_referendum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum

I’d much rather we voted on both if they are going to try enforce a referendum on us that is entirely just to suit themselves and get them off the hook on assisted dying. 

What do others think? 

[NoTail]

I would suggest as a second referendum question

Should all pension rights be stripped from MHKs and MLCs

Edited Saturday at 06:17 PM by NoTail

[DemocracyIOM]

Just now, NoTail said:

I would suggest as a/second referendum question

Should all pension rights be stripped from MHKs and MLCs

A dual referendum would suit young (weed) and old (assisted dying). It looks to me that they are only calling for a referendum to cover their own asses over assisted dying. It’s offering the public little else as a mechanism of democracy. They should have more than one subject as the subject of a referendum. 

[Moghrey Mie]

What information are they going to provide for the public to base their choice on?

The Assisted Dying Bill is very detailed and I doubt whether many people will digest all of it.

[DemocracyIOM]

1 minute ago, Moghrey Mie said:

What information are they going to provide for the public to base their choice on?

The Assisted Dying Bill is very detailed and I doubt whether many people will digest all of it.

Exactly if you see the NZ link 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_euthanasia_referendum

It asked:

“Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?

Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force.

No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force”

Simple and unneeded. The Referendum proposed here will probably consist of the usual 25 civil service multiple choice questions which will basically frame the legislation to get Cannan and Tynwald totally odd the hook for everything when the usual moaners start moaning again. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

2 hours ago, DemocracyIOM said:

Most people seem to think that the proposed Referendum on Assisted Dying is simply not needed and is, in fact, simply a brazen attempt by Tynwald to abdicate any and all responsibility for introducing perfectly sensible assisted dying legislation. 

I note that when New Zealand did a referendum on the same subject in 2020 they linked their referendum on the Euthanasia Bill to a referendum on legalizing cannabis. One failed to be passed (cannabis) and one (the Euthanasia Bill) went through on a public vote. Surely we should link in something like this if Referendum's are all of a sudden going to be such important mechanisms of democracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_euthanasia_referendum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum

I’d much rather we voted on both if they are going to try enforce a referendum on us that is entirely just to suit themselves and get them off the hook on assisted dying. 

What do others think? 

Tynwald members need to do what they are paid to do and make decisions and not abdicate difficult decisions to the public. If the Sexual Offences Act 1992 had gone to a referendum I am not convinced the public at the time would have been in favour of it.

Also why do we have two threads on this?

[Kopek]

I fancy most 'Polls' in Britain show support for both these measures?

[Albert Tatlock]

11 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Also why do we have two threads on this?

We're going to do a poll...see which one is getting sent to Switzerland. 

[Fred the shred]

Even if the referendum diversion is given the thumbs down tomorrow it will then proceed to LegCo where it will most probably be given the same treatment as the Bishop’s vote , another investigation into the effect on LegCo headed and proposed by Henderson which will not be hurried.   It is amazing no comment has been made regarding the selection of the three LegCo members who are looking into the Bishop’s vote, all three voted against the Bill.   It would have been more democratic surely to include one of the LegCo members that were in favour of the Bill.   Democracy as we know it indeed, how do they get away with it 😡

[Gladys]

Is the referendum legislation we have fit for purpose.  A report in 2019 suggested it needed to be updated.  Not sure if it has been. 

[Gladys]

 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://consult.gov.im/cabinet-office/modernisation-of-the-island-s-electoral-system/supporting_documents/Phase%202%20report%20by%20John%20Turner.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6nuCzkIOHAxX-RkEAHU_5Bdc4ChAWegQIDhAB&usg=AOvVaw2FJt2TnRcPKobqqVTRq7vD

Page 20 has the recommendations. 

[Albert Tatlock]

A referendum decision should be a vote in Tynwald...not the remit of the Chief Minister who is but one MHK.

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

A referendum decision should be a vote in Tynwald...not the remit of the Chief Minister who is but one MHK.

According to the Referendum Act 1979, a referendum needs a resolution of Tynwald. 

[Roger Mexico]

17 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Tynwald members need to do what they are paid to do and make decisions and not abdicate difficult decisions to the public. If the Sexual Offences Act 1992 had gone to a referendum I am not convinced the public at the time would have been in favour of it.

I suspect the public would have been.  It had become an embarrassment for a lot of people because of attention of the UK media and fears it was putting people and businesses off coming here.  Politicians were already tying themselves in knots saying they wanted to keep the law but promised not to use it ('conservatives' are always the biggest virtue-signallers) which just made us look even more ridiculous.

Of course there were a noisy minority who were demanding that their politicians stood firm against the evil idea of people having control over their own sex lives and there were certainly MHKs eager to pander to that and there was much talk of defiance going into the 1991 election.  But when these hit the doorsteps for their once-in-5-year chance to discuss politics with the electorate, they found that most people were vaguely in favour of the change and even of the minority who were passionate about it (which matters to politicians, because these are the people who will change their votes accordingly) more were in favour of change than against.  Certainly many of the opponents of change went quiet as the election came closer.

There was pressure from the UK as well in this case, but it was another example of where the Manx establishment believed that the public as a whole was even more morally conservative than the establishment are.  We saw the same thing over abortion where I think they were surprised for the level of support for something they thought people would be against because the Manx are somehow supposed to be still living in the 19th century.

Edited Sunday at 02:16 PM by Roger Mexico
Clarity

[FANDL]

17 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Tynwald members need to do what they are paid to do and make decisions and not abdicate difficult decisions to the public. If the Sexual Offences Act 1992 had gone to a referendum I am not convinced the public at the time would have been in favour of it.

Another case in point carried across from Twitter. They consulted people on the gas boiler ban (not a referendum of course). And of the people who responded to the consultation a clear majority (58%) expressed that they didn’t think the gas boiler ban was a good idea and it shouldn’t be implemented. But they completely ignored them and introduced the ban anyway. And now we have this call for a referendum from what is the worst possible Tynwald administration we’ve seen in a generation - they don’t listen to anyone when they want to bring in virtue signaling eco nonsense but when their backs are against the wall on something like this as they are getting some flack all of a sudden they want to listen to people and call a referendum. Wonder what will happen if they have a referendum and it’s overwhelmingly positive and, like the gas boiler issue, they then need to find a reason to ignore the results?