This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since November 2008. Its lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. Tagged since November 2009.

A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of direct democracy.

Terminology[link]

The word plebiscite comes from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant a decree of the Concilium Plebis, the popular assembly of the Roman Republic. Referendums and referenda are both commonly used as plurals of referendum. However, the use of referenda is deprecated by the Oxford English Dictionary, which advises that:

In the United States, a plebiscite is typically known as an initiative when originating in a petition of ordinary citizens, and as a referendum only if it consists of a proposal referred to voters by the legislature. A plebiscite can be considered a kind of election and is often referred to as such in the U.S. (an election literally means a choice). In other countries, the term election is often reserved for events in which elected representatives are chosen.

Procedure and status[link]

In a first classification by necessity, a referendum may be mandatory, that is, the law (usually the constitution) directs authorities to holding referendums on specific matters (such is the case in amending most constitutions, or impeaching heads of state as well as ratifying international treaties) and are usually binding. A referendum can also be facultative, that is it can be initiated at the will of a public authority (President of the Republic in France and Romania or the Government/Parliament in Greece or Spain) or at the will of the citizens (a petition). It can be binding/ non-binding.

A foundational referendum or plebiscite may be drafted by a constituent assembly before being put to voters. In other circumstances a referendum is usually initiated either by a legislature or by citizens themselves by means of a petition. The process of initiating a referendum by petition is known as the popular or citizens initiative. In the United States the term referendum is often reserved for a direct vote initiated by a legislature while a vote originating in a petition of citizens is referred to as an "initiative", "ballot measure" or "proposition."

In countries in which a referendum must be initiated by parliament, it is sometimes mandatory to hold a binding referendum on certain proposals, such as constitutional amendments. In countries, such as the United Kingdom, in which referendums are neither mandatory nor binding there may, nonetheless, exist an unwritten convention that certain important constitutional changes will be put to a referendum and that the result will be respected.

By nature of their effects, referendums may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore them. This is particularly the case in states that follow Westminster conventions of parliamentary sovereignty. In New Zealand, for example, citizen-initiated referendum (CIR) questions are broad statements of intent, not detailed laws. Following a referendum vote, parliament itself has the sole power to draft, debate and pass enabling legislation if it so chooses, and thus far, New Zealand governments have chosen to ignore completely two of the three proposals that have succeeded in forcing a vote since the CIR device was created in 1993. The third, a series of proposals about criminal justice, prompted some minor reforms only; it too was largely ignored. Matt Qvortrup in his Supply-side Politics (Centre for Policy Studies 2007) argues that this led to a disuse of the New Zealand device. While three petitions were launched in 2007, there was only one in 2004 and 2005, and none in 2006 and 2008 thus far. Only one of these have yet achieved the necessary signature target to force a vote, the overwhelming result (87% opposed) of which was largely ignored by the government.^{[citation needed]} However, according to the New Zealand Election Study,^[1] 77 percent of voters believe that the citizen initiated referendum make the politicians more accountable. Trust in politicians has grown by almost 20 percent since the introduction of the device, although that can be more plausibly attributed to the change in electoral system that occurred at the same time.

In most referendums it is sufficient for a measure to be approved by a simple majority of voters in order for it to be carried. However, a referendum may also require the support of a super-majority, such as two-thirds of votes cast. In Lithuania certain proposals must be endorsed by a three-quarters majority (among them, any proposal to amend article 148 of the Lithuanian Constitution, which states, "Lithuania is an independent and democratic republic").

In some countries, including Italy, there is also a requirement that there be a certain minimum turn-out of the electorate in order for the result of a referendum to be considered valid. This is intended to ensure that the result is representative of the will of the electorate and is analogous to the quorum required in a committee or legislature.

The franchise in a referendum is not necessarily the same as that for elections. For example, in Ireland, only citizens may vote in a constitutional referendum, whereas citizens of the United Kingdom are also entitled to vote in general elections.^[2]

Types[link]

A number of referendums are routinely held in various jurisdictions:

Foreign policy-oriented

• Independence (also known as Political status, devolution, sovereignty, etc.) - a referendum which is held to determine how a jurisdiction relates to either an incumbent outside nation-state or to other nation-states.
• Treaty (also known as Accession, membership) - a referendum to approve the proposed accession of the nation-state to a treaty or intergovernmental relationship
• War - a referendum to approve a declaration of war

Domestic policy-oriented

• Constitutional (or charter) - a referendum which is held to ratify a proposed constitution or constitutional amendment
• Prohibition - a referendum which is held to prohibit an action by private parties in a jurisdiction
• Rights - a referendum to determine the status of a class of people within a jurisdiction

Referendums by country[link]

Australia[link]

Approval in a referendum is necessary in order to amend the Australian constitution. A bill must first be passed by both houses of Parliament or, in certain limited circumstances, by only one house of Parliament, and is then submitted to a referendum. If a majority of those voting, as well as separate majorities in each of a majority of states, (and where appropriate a majority of people in any affected state) vote in favour of the amendment, it is presented for Royal Assent, given in the Queen's name by the Governor-General. Due to the specific mention of referendums in the Australian constitution, non-constitutional referendums are usually termed plebiscites in Australia.

Brazil[link]

Three nationwide referendums were held so far in Brazilian history.

In 1961, the country had just adopted the parliamentary government system, but in a referendum held in 1963, the Brazilian population was consulted about which government system should be withheld in the country and it was decided to have Brazil return to a Presidential system.

In 1993, another referendum to decide Brazil's government system was held. Voters could choose between keep the presidential republic system, adopt a parliamentary republic system, or adopt a parliamentary monarchy system. The majority of voters opined to maintain the current presidential government system.

In 2005 a referendum was held to consult the population about their opinion on the possibility to forbid the sale and civilian possession of firearms and ammunition nationwide. Most of voters declared themselves contrary to the ban and the laws regarding commerce and ownership of weapons in the country remained unaltered.

Canada[link]

Referendums are rare in Canada and only three have ever occurred at the federal level. The most recent was a referendum in 1992 on a package of proposed constitutional measures known as the Charlottetown Accord. Although the Constitution of Canada does not expressly require that amendments be approved by referendum, many argue that, in light of the precedent set by the Charlottetown Accord referendum, this may have become a constitutional convention.

A referendum can also occur at the provincial level. The 1980 and 1995 referendums on the secession of Québec are notable cases. In conjunction with the provincial election in 2007, the province of Ontario voted on a mixed-member proportional representation electoral system and British Columbia held two consecutive referendums on BC-STV in 2005 and 2009. In 2011 British Columbia held yet another referendum against a newly imposed HST tax. The results ended up making British Columbia the first province to overturn the harmonization of provincial and federal taxes.

Chile[link]

There have been four plebiscites and one "consultation" in Chilean history. In 1925, a plebiscite was held over a new constitution that would replace a semi-parliamentary system with a presidential one. The "Yes" vote won overwhelmingly, with 95% of the vote.

In 1978, after the United Nations protested against Pinochet's régime, the country's military government held a national consultation, which asked if people supported Pinochet's rule. The "Yes" vote won with 74%, although the results have been questioned.

Another constitutional plebiscite was held in 1980. The "Yes" won with 68.5%, prolonging Pinochet's term until 1989 and replacing the 1925 Constitution with a new one still used today. The results of this plebiscite have also been questioned by Pinochet's opponents, because of the lack of voters registration.

In a historical plebiscite held in 1988, 56% voted to end the military régime. The next year, yet another plebiscite was held for constitutional changes for the transition to a democratic government (the "Yes" vote won with 91%).

There have been several referendums in individual municipalities in Chile since the return to civilian rule in 1990. A referendum, which took place on 2006 in Las Condes, over the construction of a mall was noteworthy for being the first instance in Chilean history where electronic voting machines were used.

Costa Rica[link]

October 7, 2007 the first referendum held in Costa Rica was to approve or reject the free trade agreement with Central America, Dominican Republic (Costa Rica already has FTAs with the latter) and the United States known as the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

It was very narrowly approved (49.030 votes). Results were 51.62% voted in favour and 48.38% against it. It is currently the only free trade agreement in the world that has been approved on a referendum.

From 2008 to 2010 conservative groups, linked to religious institutions, managed to collect 150,000 signatures to call a referendum to decline unions between same-sex couples. The Supreme Elections Tribunal (TSE) had scheduled the consultation on December 5, 2010.

However, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the referendum stating that "The rights of minorities that arise from anti-majoritarian claims can not be subjected to a referendum process which the majority imposes". This consideration supports the main argument of those who rejected the consultation considered a violation of human rights, among these gay groups and humanitarian actors.

The Board further considered that "people who have sex with same sex are a group at disadvantage and discrimination, which requires the support of public authorities for the recognition of their constitutional rights or other legislation". Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final so the ruling stopped the referendum and opened to the Congress the opportunity to continue discussing the bill on the recognition of homosexual unions.

Croatia[link]

Referendum in Croatia can be called by:

• Parliament of Croatia
• President of Croatia

Institution of referendum is regulated by article 87. of constitution of Croatia. Referendum can be called on any issue falling within competence of Parliament of Croatia or on any other issue which President of Croatia considers to be important for the independence, unity and existence of the Republic.

Since amendments to constitution in 2001, Parliament of Croatia is obligated by constitution to call a referendum if signatures of 10% of registered voters of Republic of Croatia are collected. Timeframe for collecting the signatures is defined by Law on referendums and it is 15 days.^[3]

Denmark[link]

In Denmark, after a law has been passed by parliament, one third of the members can demand a referendum^[4]. This does not apply to money bills or expropriation. A law that transfers sovereignty to an international organisation must be subjected to a referendum unless five sixth of the MPs vote for it. In both cases, to defeat the law the no votes must not only outnumber the yes votes, they must also number at least 30% of the electorate. Since all referendums have had much more than 60% turnout, no bill has yet passed due to lack of interest.

In practise, referendums have been held every time new treaties of the European Union have been approved, even when more than five sixths can be found. Recently, the Danish government was highly criticized when it did not hold a referendum regarding the controversial Lisbon treaty.

The Constitution of Denmark can be changed only after a referendum. To pass, the yes votes must not only outnumber the no votes, they must also number at least 40% of the electorate.

The present location of the border with Germany was determined by a referendum in 1920 after the German capitulation. See Schleswig.

Egypt[link]

On 19 March 2011 a constitutional referendum was held in Egypt, following the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The reforms made it easier for candidates to run for president, limited the number of presidential terms to two four-year periods, and ensured judicial monitoring of elections.

Hong Kong[link]

Due to discontent towards the proposal of political reform made by the Hong Kong government, the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats joined together to carry out "Five Constituencies Referendum" in early 2010, by having one Legislative Councillors (from either one of the parties) in each constituency resigned, forcing the government to carry out a by-election, thus giving a chance for all voters to show their will towards universal suffrage and the abolishment of functional constituencies .Quite often, it is refereed as "De facto referendum".

The Basic Law of Hong Kong does not provide for official referendums, but the pan-democrats hope that by returning the resignees to the Legislative Council, on their manifesto of real political reform in Hong Kong and the abolition of functional constituencies,^[5] the election can be seen as a de-facto referendum and an endorsement of these issues.^[6]

The original five pan-democrat Legislative Councillors were re-elected, the turnout was much lower than the expectation of the two parties, due to the suppression of pro-Beijing Camp.

Iceland[link]

The constitution of Iceland provides two articles on referendums:

• According to the 11th article, if 3/4 of the parliament votes to dismiss the president then that decision must be put to a binding referendum.
• According to the 26th article, should the president veto a bill from the parliament then it must be put to a binding referendum.

A total of 7 referendums have been held in Iceland, two of which were held after the nation declared independence and became a republic in 1944.

1. Prohibition referendum (1908)
2. Community service referendum (1916)
3. Sovereignty referendum (1918)
4. Prohibitation referendum (1933)
5. Constitutional referendum (1944)
6. Loan guarantees referendum (2010)
7. Loan guarantees referendum (2011)

Iraq[link]

The current Constitution of Iraq was approved by referendum on 15 October 2005, two years after the United States-led invasion. The constitution was designed to shift crucial decisions about government, the judiciary and human rights to a future national assembly. It was later modified to provide for the establishment of a committee by the parliament to be elected in December 2005 to consider changes to the constitution in 2006.

Ireland[link]

The current Constitution of Ireland was adopted by plebiscite on 1 July 1937. In the Republic of Ireland every constitutional amendment must be approved by referendum; 30 such referendums have occurred so far (from the enactment of the current constitution to the end of 2009).^[7] Constitutional amendments are first adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament), submitted to a referendum, and are signed into law by the President. The signature is merely a formality: the president cannot refuse to sign into law an amendment that has been approved in a referendum. The constitution also provides for a referendum on an ordinary law, known as an 'ordinary referendum'. Such a referendum can take place only under special circumstances, and none have yet occurred. The closest referendum result was 1995's vote to legalise divorce - 50.3% voted "Yes" (to legalise divorce) and 49.7% voted "No." Only Ireland held a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Italy[link]

The constitution of Italy provides for two kinds of binding referendums.

A legislative referendum can be called in order to abrogate a law totally or partially, if requested by 500,000 electors or five regional councils. This kind of referendum is valid only if at least a majority of electors goes to the polling station. It is forbidden to call a referendum regarding financial laws or laws relating to pardons or the ratification of international treaties.

A constitutional referendum can be called in order to approve a constitutional law or amendment only when it has been approved by the Houses (Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Republic) with a majority of less than two thirds in both or either House, and only at the request of one fifth of the members of either House, or 500,000 electors or five Regional Councils. A constitutional referendum is valid no matter how many electors go to the polling station. Any citizen entitled to vote in an election to the Chamber of Deputies may participate in a referendum.

Malta[link]

There are three types of referendums in Malta: Constitutional, consultative and abrogative referendums.

Constitutional referendums are required by article 66(3) of the Constitution of Malta. While binding, it is limited to the single instance of amending the Constitutional provision on the maximum parliamentary term of five year. This type of referendum has never taken place.

The other categories of referendums are regulated by the Referenda Act. "Consultative" referendums (the Act does not use the term) can either take place prior to the assent of a bill in the House of Representatives or following the parliamentary procedure in a form of a conditional clause in the said bill. In the former case it would not legally bind Parliament to approve the said legislation irrelevant of the result of the said referendum, however the latter case, it would be conventionally binding on the President to promulgate the bill into law. There has been five referendums like this on a national level, one on a regional level (Gozo Civic Council referendum, 1973) and a number of local referendums organised by single Local Councils.

An abrogative referendum it has never been utilized and if invoked and successful can abrogate pieces of legislation barring some exceptions notably financial and constitutional law.

Moldova[link]

According to Article 75 of the Constitution of Moldova, "(1) Problems of utmost gravity or urgency confronting the Moldovan society or State shall be resolved by referendum. (2) The decisions passed in consequence of the results produced by the republican referendum have supreme judicial power." There were two referendums held in Moldova, in 1994 and 2010. The Moldovan referendum, 2012 will be held in April 2012.

Morocco[link]

There have been several referendums in Morocco. Most of which were related to the Moroccan constitution. Since he became king of Morocco, King Mohammed VI has led a lot of reforms that made Morocco an exception from all the other Arab countries. On February 20, 2011, Thousands took to the streets of Rabat, Casablanca, Tangier and Marrakesh in peaceful protests demanding a new constitution, a change in government and an end to corruption. During a march on Hassan II Avenue in the capital, Rabat, demonstrators demanded a new constitution to bring more democracy to the country. They shouted slogans calling for economic opportunity, education reform, better health services, and help in coping with the rising cost of living. On March 9, King Mohammed VI made a speech that was described as a "historical" speech in which he announced several reforms including a new constitution to the country. In a televised speech on Friday, 17 June, King Mohammed VI announced a series of constitutional reforms, to be put to a national referendum on 1 July. The proposed reforms would give the prime minister and the parliament more executive authority, and would make Berber an official language in Morocco, together with Arabic. The proposal would empower the prime minister with the authority to appoint government officials and to dissolve the parliament - the powers previously held by the king. However, the king would remain the military commander-in-chief and would retain his position as the chair of the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Security Council, the primary bodies responsible for the security policy. A new constitutional provision would also confirm the king's role as the highest religious authority in the country. Although most people were celebrating among the protesters after the King's speech, the leaders of the 20 February Movement rejected the proposals as insufficient and called for continuing protests on 19 June 2011. On 29 June 2011, the protesters called for a boycott of the referendum. The referendum was held on June 1, and almost all Moroccans said yes to it with a "98% yes" "2% No" turnout.

Netherlands[link]

In principle, national referendums in the Netherlands are not possible by law. However, from 2002 until 2005, there was a Temporary Referendum Law in place, which allowed for non-binding referendums, known in Dutch as Volksraadpleging ("People's Consultation"), to be organised for laws already approved by the House of Representatives. No referendum was called based on this law.

In order to hold the 2005 referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, a different law was temporarily put in place. That referendum was the first national referendum in the Netherlands in 200 years and it was the result of an initiative proposal by parliamentarians Farah Karimi (Greens), Niesco Dubbelboer (Labour) and Boris van der Ham (Democrats).

New Zealand[link]

New Zealand has two types of referendum. Government referendums are predominantly about alcohol policy (although none has been held recently) or constitutional issues. However, there are referendums on other issues. Furthermore, constitutional issues, such as the establishment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, may be done without a referendum. New Zealand also has provision for citizens-initiated referendums, although these are non-binding. The Prime Minister, John Key, has said he will work to raise the number of times referendums are used.

Norway[link]

The Norwegian Constitution does not mention refendums at all, and as such, referendums are not a part of Norwegian political practice. However, six advisory referendums have been held in Norway, most notably, the referendums on Norwegian EU membership, and the referendum for dissolving the union with Sweden. It is worth noting that these referendums, and potential future referendums, although legitimate as part of Norwegian constitutional convention, will not have any legal binding: They will merely be advisory, and the final decision will be taken by the Norwegian parliament, who may choose (albeit unlikely) to disregard the will of the Norwegian people as expressed through the referendum.

Portugal[link]

In Portugal, a Referendum is a determined proposition presented by the Government, Citizens or Political Organizations that is submitted to the popular pronouncement through a national election. Until now, there were already three Referendums: abortion, in 1998, when the "No" won; regionalization, in 1998, when the "No" won; abortion, in 2007, where the "Yes" won. This referendum was asked because the first referendum on this issue had a low turnout.

Romania[link]

Under the Romanian Constitution of 1991, revised in 2003, there are three situations in which referendums can be held. Article 90 of the Constitution establishes a facultative and non-binding referendum, which the President can initiate on matters of principle. Article 95 establishes a mandatory and binding referendum for the impeachment of the President in case he is deemed guilty of disobeying the Constitution. Article 151 also establishes a mandatory and binding referendum on approving Constitutional amendments. This last provision has been used twice: in adopting the Romanian Constitution in 1991, and amending it in 2003.

Serbia[link]

The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was adopted on a referendum held in 28–29 October 2006. The constitutional referendum passed with 3,521,724 voting a 53.04% majority. 3,645,517 or 54.91% voted on the referendum, which made it legitimate.

Singapore[link]

According to the Constitution of Singapore, a referendum can be held in a few circumstances, including situations when a constitutional amendment passed by the Parliament is rejected by the President, or when the nation's sovereignty needs to be decided (i.e. merger or incorporation into other countries). There has been only one referendum in Singapore to date, which is the 1962 national referendum, deciding on the merger of Singapore into Malaysia. Singapore was eventually forced to secede from Malaysia and declared independence, which had not even been an option in the referendum, on 9 August 1965. Hence, Singapore became the only country to become independent against its own will.^{[citation needed]}

Sweden[link]

The Constitution of Sweden provides for both binding and non-binding referendums.^{[citation needed]} Since the introduction of parliamentary democracy, six referendums have been held: the first was about alcohol prohibition in 1922, and the most recent was about euro membership in 2003. All have been non-binding, consultative referendums. Two, in 1957 and 1980, were multiple-choice referendums.

Switzerland[link]

In Switzerland Swiss voters can demand a binding referendum at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government's choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:

• Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are ongoing in nature, or any change to Swiss law may be subject to referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. Within cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most common type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
• Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are proposed by the parliament or by the cantons or by citizens' initiatives. Citizen's initiatives at the federal level need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.

The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.

The referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand, empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens' participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Referendums are also often combined with elections. The percentage of voters is around 40% to 50%, unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

Taiwan[link]

The Referendum Act was promoted and introduced by the Democratic Progressive Party for years and then enacted by the Legislative Yuan in 2003. There have been six national referendums and two local referendums in Taiwan.

United Kingdom[link]

Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect.

Major referendums are rare; only two have been put to the entire UK electorate. The first was the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, which was held two years after British accession to the European Economic Community to gauge support for continued membership. The second was the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. This was to vote on changing the 'First Past the Post' system to an alternative electoral system, the Alternative Vote.

Referendums have been held in individual parts of the United Kingdom on issues relating to devolution in Scotland and Wales, an elected Mayor of London and a Greater London Authority for Greater London, a regional assembly for the North-East of England and the constitutional status and governance of Northern Ireland. Since 1973, the year of the first such plebiscite, there have been nine major referendums.

In 2004, Her Majesty's Government promised a UK-wide referendum on the new European Constitution, but this was postponed in 2005 following the defeats of the French and Dutch referendums. Due to the replacement of the European Constitution with the Treaty of Lisbon, there was no obligation for a referendum. Referendums have also been proposed, but not held, on the replacement of the pound sterling with the euro as the currency of the United Kingdom. The present Scottish Government, a Scottish National Party administration, wishes to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014. As it is now a majority government, the referendum can pass through the Scottish Parliament unhindered. The Westminster government has also indicated that it will facilitate such a referendum.^[8]

At the local level, the Government has put proposals for directly-elected mayors to 37 local authority areas by referendum. The 1972 Local Government Act also contains a little-used provision that allows non-binding local referendums on any issue to be called by small groups of voters. Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum in 1994 on whether control of water and sewerage services should be transferred to appointed boards: this was largely a political tactic, since this was the policy of the UK Government at the time. The UK Parliament enacted the legislation anyway, and it came into force on 1 April 1996.

United States[link]

In the United States, the term "referendum" typically refers to a popular vote originated by petition to overturn legislation already passed at the state or local levels (mainly in the western United States). In industrial cities and regions, it refers to internal, union organization in terms of electing delegates or approving a collective bargaining agreement. By contrast, "initiatives" and "legislative referrals" consist of newly drafted legislation submitted directly to a popular vote as an alternative to adoption by a legislature. Collectively, referendums and initiatives in the United States are commonly referred to as ballot measures, initiatives, or propositions.

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States; indeed, there is no national electorate of any kind. The United States constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it. However, the constitutions of 24 states (principally in the West) and many local and city governments provide for referendums and citizen's initiatives.

However, a Constitutional Convention can be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and that Convention to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Uruguay[link]

The Uruguayan constitution allows citizens to challenge laws approved by Parliament by use of a referendum or to propose changes to the Constitution by the use of a plebiscite. This right has been used a few times in the past 15 years: to confirm an amnesty to members of the military who violated human rights during the military regime (1973–1985), to stop privatization of public utilities companies, to defend pensioners' incomes, and to protect water resources.

Other countries[link]

• Brazil: In October 2005, 122 million voters decided to continue to allow the sale of firearms in Brazil. This referendum was offered by the government as part of a violence minimization initiative known as project disarmament.
• East Timor, formerly governed by Indonesia, had a referendum on 30 August 1999, in which voters chose either to become a Special Autonomous Region within Indonesia, or for independence. Around 79% of voters opted for independence.
• Eritrea: In April 1993 nearly 1 million voters (a quarter of the population), cast ballots to become "sovereign and independent" of Ethiopia. This vote was the result of thirty years of war by Eritreans during their War of Independence. The result was a vote for independence by 99.8% of the voters.
• France: The practice of referendums for tough decisions appeared with Charles De Gaulle's Fifth Republic, in order to overcome the Parliament. A referendum can be called by the President for constitutional changes, treaty ratification, laws concerning the administration or the territory. The political risks involved made the practice rare. Most constitutional revisions went through the super-majority of the Parliament in Congress. Therefore, a procedure of popular initiative, backed by a handful of MPs, is being put in place.
• Iran: In 1979 and after the Islamic Revolution had toppled the Iranian monarchy, a referendum was held to choose the future governing system of the country. The question was a simple yes or no to the Islamic Republic, a system which combines direct representation with religious authority. The Islamic Republic was established after more than 98% of the population voted yes.
• 'Kashmir' (a state within the territory of India and Pakistan) The Security Council of United Nations on the complaint of Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir passed resolution 47(1948), “that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. It recommended to the Governments of India and Pakistan to restore peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir and provide full freedom to all subjects of the state, to vote on the question of accession.
• Puerto Rico: Three Puerto Rican status referendums (in 1967, 1993, and 1998) have taken place in Puerto Rico to determine whether the insular area should become an independent nation (comprising a republic and an associated republic), apply for statehood, or maintain commonwealth (Estado Libre Asociado) status. Remaining a commonwealth has been the result of all three referendums. There was also a 2005 referendum (Resolution 64) to determine whether the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico should be restructured (among other changes to become unicameral).
• Pakistan:General Pervez Musharraf held a referendum on 30 April 2002 to legitimize his presidency and assure its continuance after the approaching restoration of democracy. He thus extended his term to five years after the October 2002 elections. The voter turnout was 80 percent by most estimates, amidst claims of irregularities. A few weeks later, Musharraf went on TV and apologized to the nation for "irregularities" in the referendum.
• Singapore: On 1 September 1962, a referendum was held to put the terms of the merger with Malaya to a direct vote by the citizens of Singapore. (The decision to merge with Malaya had already been made.) There were three choices: 1) To merge with Malaya, having autonomy in labour and education; 2) To merge with Malaya, having same status as the other states in Malaya; 3) To merge with Malaya, having terms similar to those of the Borneo territories. Option #1 won with 71%. Two years after the merger, Malaysia expelled Singapore.
• Slovenia: There was an independence referendum on 23 December 1990. The turnout was 93.3% of all voters, of which 94.8% that cast a vote supported independence. It was the first such referendum in one of the then Yugoslavian republics and as such marked a turning point in the history of many nations. The results were announced on 26 December, and on 25 June 1991, Slovenian parliament passed an independence law proclaiming Slovenia a sovereign country. This was followed by the Ten-Day War, in which Slovenian forces drove the Yugoslav People's Army out of the country.^[9][10]
• Spain: In 1976 a referendum was held to determine if citizens wanted to change the political system (dictatorship) or not to change it, after the death of Francisco Franco. Spaniards chose (94%) to change ("Referéndum para la reforma política", literally «Referendum for political reformation»). Also, in 1986 another referendum approved Spain's membership of NATO.
• Russian Constitution of 1993 was adopted by controversial referendum.
• Venezuela: The 1999 constitution, created by the Chávez government, and approved by referendum, brought in the concept of requiring referendums for constitutional changes, as well as providing for recall referendums of elected officials (which require petitions of a minimum percentage of voters to be submitted). In the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004 voters determined whether or not Hugo Chávez, the current President of Venezuela, should be recalled from office. The result of the referendum was to not recall Chávez.
• Thailand: On 4 September 2008, amidst hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding the government resign, Thailand's premier Samak Sundaravej's government approved the idea of a referendum to ask the Thai electorate if it wanted to keep the government or not. The plebiscite was not held because it was certain to legitimize unfairly the government's standing and policies.

Multiple-choice referendums[link]

A referendum usually offers the electorate only two choices, either to accept or reject a proposal, but this need not necessarily be the case. In Switzerland, for example, multiple choice referendums are common; two multiple choice referendums held in Sweden, in 1957 and 1980, offered voters a choice of three options; and in 1977 a referendum held in Australia to determine a new national anthem was held in which voters were presented with four choices.

A multiple choice referendum poses the problem of how the result is to be determined if no single option receives the support of an absolute majority (more than half) of voters. This can be resolved by applying voting systems designed for single winner elections to a multiple-choice referendum.

Swiss referendums get around this problem by offering a separate vote on each of the multiple options as well as an additional decision about which of the multiple options should be preferred. In the Swedish case, in both referendums the 'winning' option was chosen by the Single Member Plurality ("first past the post") system. In other words the winning option was deemed to be that supported by a plurality, rather than an absolute majority, of voters. In the 1977 Australian referendum the winner was chosen by the system of preferential instant-runoff voting.

Although California does not have deliberate multiple-choice referendums in the Swiss or Swedish sense (in which only one of several counter-propositions can be victorious, and the losing proposals are wholly null and void), it does have so many yes-or-no referendums at each Election Day that the State's Constitution provides a method for resolving inadvertent conflicts when two or more inconsistent propositions are passed on the same day. This is a de facto form of Approval Voting - i.e., the proposition with the most "yes" votes prevails over the others to the extent of any conflict.

Criticisms[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice and in principle, in almost all cases, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. An often cited exception is the Swiss canton of Glarus, in which meetings are held on the village lawn to decide on matters of public concern. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to important issues.

Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy, saying elected parliaments are a necessary expedient to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state, though direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and the referendum takes precedence over Parliamentary decisions.

Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.

Advocates of representative democracy say referendums are used by politicians to avoid making difficult or controversial decisions.

Criticism of populist aspect[link]

Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by strong personalities, propaganda and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."

Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.

Patten's criticism[link]

British politician Chris Patten summarized many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum in an interview in 2003 when discussing the possibility of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the European Union Constitution:

Never-end-um[link]

A further perceived flaw of the referendum is that, in some circumstances, the democratic spirit of the referendum may be flouted by the repeated submission to the referendum of a proposal until it is eventually endorsed, perhaps due to a low turn-out or public fatigue with the issue. This is especially a problem where a proposal may be difficult to reverse, such as secession from a larger country or the abolition of a monarchy. The repeated holding of a referendum on a single issue has been pejoratively referred to as a "never-end-um".

Many critics of the EU^[who?] point to the Treaty of Nice's ratification procedure in Ireland, where the government submitted the Treaty to a referendum twice, getting the required "Yes" vote on the second attempt. This controversy was repeated during the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Closed questions and the separability problem[link]

Some critics of the referendum attack the use of closed questions. A difficulty which can plague a referendum of two issues or more is called the separability problem. If one issue is in fact, or in perception, related to another on the ballot, the imposed simultaneous voting of first preference on each issue can result in an outcome that is displeasing to most.

Undue limitations on regular government power[link]

Several commentators have noted that the use of citizens' initiatives to amend constitutions has so tied the government to a mishmash of popular demands as to render the government unworkable. The Economist has made this point about the US State of California, which has passed so many referendums restricting the ability of the state government to tax the people and pass the budget that the state has become effectively ungovernable. Calls for an entirely new California constitution have been made.^[12]

Sources[link]

• Emerson, P J. Defining Democracy puts both two-option and multi-option referendums into their historical context and suggests which are the more accurate measures of "the will of the people". The de Borda Institute is at http://www.deborda.org
• Emerson Peter, Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy (Springer-Verlag, 2007), describes the Modified Borda Count (MBC), as well as the Quota Borda System (QBS) and the matrix vote.
• The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation, statistics (German). http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/03/blank/key/stimmbeteiligung.html

See also[link]

• History of direct democracy in the United States
• List of politics-related topics
• Political science
• Direct democracy
• Referendums related to the European Union
• Initiative
• Initiative and referendum
• United Nations in Kashmir
• Independence referendum
• Popular referendum
• War referendum

Specific referendums[link]

• Arizona Proposition 204, 2006
• Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals)
• Belfast Agreement (1998)
• Bolivian gas referendum, 2004
• Carinthian Plebiscite (1920)
• Cypriot Annan Plan referendum, 2004
• Edinburgh congestion charge (2005)
• Kenyan constitutional referendum, 2005
• Montenegrin independence referendum, 1992
• Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006
• Norwegian prohibition referendum, 1919
• Norwegian continued prohibition referendum, 1926
• Norwegian European Communities membership referendum, 1972
• Norwegian European Union membership referendum, 1994
• Panama Canal expansion referendum, 2006
• Puerto Rico status referendums (1967, 1993, 1998)
• Republic of China referendums
• Serbian constitutional referendum, 2006
• South African referendum, 1992
• Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2006
• Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004
• Referendums in Canada
  • Alberta liquor plebiscite, 1957
  • British Columbia aboriginal treaty referendum, 2002
  • British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2005
  • British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2009
  • Charlottetown Accord
  • List of Northwest Territories plebiscites
  • Newfoundland referendums, 1948
  • Northwest Territories division plebiscite, 1982
  • Nunavut capital plebiscite, 1995
  • Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007
  • Ontario prohibition plebiscite, 1894
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1902
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1919
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1921
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1924
  • Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum, 2005
  • Quebec referendum, 1980
  • Quebec referendum, 1995
  • Saint John, New Brunswick ward plebiscite, 2007
• Referendums in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975
  • United Kingdom European Constitution referendum (proposed)
  • United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011
  • Northern England devolution referendums, 2004
  • Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998
  • Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973
  • Scottish devolution referendum, 1979
  • Scottish devolution referendum, 1997
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 1979
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 1997
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 2011
  • Edinburgh congestion charge
  • Greater London Authority referendum, 1998
• Referendums related to European Union accession:
  • Danish European Communities membership referendum, 1972
  • Norwegian European Communities membership referendum, 1972
  • Norwegian European Union membership referendum, 1994
  • Polish European Union membership referendum, 2003

References[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Referendums

Beppe Grillo
Leader of the Five Star Movement
Incumbent
Assumed office October 4, 2009
Personal details
Born	(1948-07-21) 21 July 1948 (age 63) Genoa, Italy
Nationality	Italian
Political party	Five Star Movement
Relations	Married
Children	6
Occupation	Comedian, Activist, Politician
Religion	Roman Catholicism
Website	http://www.beppegrillo.it/

Giuseppe Piero Grillo, better known as Beppe Grillo (born 21 July 1948), is an Italian activist, blogger, comedian and actor. He has been involved in politics since 2009 as leader of the Five Star Movement.

Biography[link]

Grillo was born in Genoa, Liguria.

After receiving his degree as an accountant, Grillo became a comedian by chance, improvising a monologue in an audition. Two weeks later he was discovered and launched by Italian TV presenter Pippo Baudo. He subsequently participated in the variety show Secondo Voi for two years (1977–78). Later, in 1979, he participated in Luna Park by Enzo Trapani, and Fantastico.

In the 1980s his success rose further, thanks to shows like Te la do io l'America (1982, 4 episodes) and Te lo do io il Brasile (1984, six episodes). In these shows, he narrated his experiences of his visits to the United States and Brazil, with anecdotes and witticisms about the culture, lifestyle and beauty of these places.

As a result, his popularity grew more and more, and he became the protagonist of another show developed especially for him, called Grillometro (Grillometer). In 1986, he was the star of prize-winning advertisements for a brand of yogurt.

Soon after this, his performances began to be characterized by an increasing level of political satire, often expressed in such a direct way that he quickly offended a lot of Italian politicians. In 1987 during the Saturday night TV show Fantastico 7, he attacked the Italian Socialist Party and its leader Bettino Craxi, then Italy's Prime Minister, on the occasion of his visit in the People's Republic of China. Grillo said:

If the Chinese are all socialists, whom do they steal from?

The joke hinted at the totalitarianism of the PRC, but even more to the widespread corruption for which the Italian Socialist Party was known. As a consequence, Grillo was effectively and silently banished from publicly owned television; yet, he was vindicated a few years later when the Italian Socialist Party had to be disbanded in a welter of corruption scandals known as Tangentopoli, uncovered by the Mani pulite investigation. Craxi himself died in Tunisia, unable to return to Italy where he would have been jailed for several convictions.

Consequently, from the beginning of the 1990s his appearances on television became rare: according to many people, the reason for this is a silent ostracism by politicians offended by his revelations about their hidden financial activities, frauds and false claims. When one of his shows was finally allowed to be broadcast by RAI, in 1993, it obtained a record share of 16 million viewers. He was later banned definitively from Italian television.

He currently performs in theatres in Italy and abroad, often with outstanding success.^[1] Grillo's themes include energy usage, political and corporate corruption, finance, freedom of speech, child labour, globalization, and technology. Recently Grillo started to encourage the use of Wikipedia as the future of knowledge sharing, and generally he is a strong proponent of internet freedom.^[2]

Political activism[link]

Beppe Grillo in Bologna speaking at V-Day.

Grillo has spearheaded several national and international political campaigns. On Sept. 8, 2007, he organized a "V-Day Celebration" in Italy; the "V" stood for vendetta, vengeance, and vaffanculo ("fuck off"). During the rally, Grillo projected the names of two dozen Italian politicians who had been convicted of crimes ranging from corruption and tax evasion to abetting a murder. More than 2 million Italians participated in this rally.^[3] Grillo also used this rally to urge Italians to sign a petition calling for the introduction of a Bill of Popular Initiative to remove members of the Italian Parliament who have criminal convictions of any kind from their office.^[4] According to Internet scholars, V–day was the first case in Italian history of a political demonstration developed and promoted via word–of–mouth mobilization on the blogosphere and the social web.^[5]

This was followed by the second V-Day on 25 April 2008, in Turin, S.Carlo square. This V-Day was dedicated to the Italian press and its government financial support; Grillo heavily criticized the Italian press for the lack of freedom; Umberto Veronesi (about his support for incinerators); NATO bases in Italy, the politicians (Silvio Berlusconi had recently been re-elected) and Retequattro, still holding on to TV frequencies already assigned to Europa 7 [2].

Beppe Grillo in Turin during electoral campaign.

On 1 September 2005, thanks to contributions from readers of his blog, Grillo bought a full page advertisement in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in which he called for the resignation of the Bank of Italy's (then) governor Antonio Fazio over the Antonveneta banking scandal. In October 2005, Time chose him as one of the "European Heroes 2005" for his constant battle against corruption and financial scandals.^[6]

On 22 November 2005 Grillo also bought a page in the International Herald Tribune, again claiming that members of the Italian Parliament ought not to represent citizens if they have ever been convicted in a court of law, even in the first degree of the three available in the Italian system.^[7] His blog now contains a regularly updated list of members of the Italian Parliament who have been convicted in all three degrees, in what he calls "operation Clean Parliament".^[8] Grillo claimed, in 2007, that data suggested that even Scampia, the most dangerous suburb of Naples and one of the areas with the highest crime rate in Europe, actually had a lower crime rate than the Italian parliament's membership.^[9]

On 26 July 2007 Grillo was permitted to speak to the members of the European Parliament in Brussels, where he drew attention to the dangerous, negative state of current Italian politics.^[10]

In August 2008, Grillo was the subject of a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC-TV) international affairs program "Foreign Correspondent". Titled "The Clown Prince" the report profiled Grillo's life, political activism, V Day campaign, and use of the internet as a political tool.^[11]

In 2010, he started a political movement called "Movimento 5 stelle" ("Movement five stars"), without the desire to be a leader and to be elected, but only to join, by the Internet, people who believe in ideals like honesty and direct democracy, and saying that politicians are only subordinates of the people and that they should work for the country only for a short time and only if they are not condemned for crimes, and thinking about the problems of their country without any other interest. The movement will be truly a party chance only from the next political round, when they will purpose their name not only in some regions but also in the political elections. The five stars represent the five basic points of the shared program: Water, Environment, Transport, Connectivity, Growth.

Beppegrillo.it[link]

Grillo maintains a blog (available in Italian, English and Japanese) at beppegrillo.it which is updated daily. Comments to posts regularly top the thousands (in the Italian version). According to Technorati, the blog is ranked among the 10 most visited blogs in the world. In 2008, The Guardian ranked Grillo's blog among the world's most powerful blogs.^[12]

Grillo often receives letters of appreciation and support from prominent figures, such as Antonio Di Pietro (former Italian Minister of Infrastructures), Fausto Bertinotti (former President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies), Renzo Piano, and even Nobel Prize Winners (like Dario Fo, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dalai Lama, Muhammad Yunus).^[13]

Legal issues[link]

In 1980 he was found guilty of manslaughter for a car accident in which he was the driver; three passengers lost their lives.^[14]

During his shows Grillo never hesitates to name firms and personalities he considers corrupt, always supporting his views with data and documents^{[citation needed]}. For this reason he has been sued several times for libel by many people and organizations which he had exposed, such as Telecom Italia.

When Italian judges were investigating the Parmalat scandal, which was then the world's largest corporate bankruptcy scandal ever, Grillo was called to testify as he anticipated the imminent collapse of the dairy conglomerate in one of his shows. When he was asked by judges how he has been able to discover that, he simply said that Parmalat's financial holes were so evident that anybody who had enough ability to see them would see them, since the corporate accounting was easily accessible.^[15]

Criticism[link]

Grillo is often criticized for his lifestyle. In particular, critics blame him for owning a motor yacht and a Ferrari sports car, both being in contradiction with his well known ecologist stance. In his blog he admits that he did, in fact, acquire both but has since sold them.^[14]

Grillo is also criticized for taking advantage of the Condono Tombale, a fiscal amnesty granted by the first Berlusconi government in 2001, which Grillo publicly opposed.^[16] Grillo commented on this issue during the V-Day demonstration. He said that he had personally benefitted by only €500^{[citation needed]}.

Grillo has proposed that members of the Italian Parliament who have a criminal record should be barred from public office. As Grillo himself has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter caused by a car accident^[14] his critics^[who?] say he has no right to represent Italians either. Grillo has always stated that he is not interested in becoming a member of the Italian Parliament anyway.^[14] Despite this, in July 2009 he publicly expressed his intention to present himself as a candidate for the PD's primary elections^[17] which, however, does not imply automatic presence in the Italian parliament.

Another proposal of his is that members of Parliament be limited to two government terms of office after which they might not stand again. Detractors^[who?] argue that this would shorten the political life of competent and expert politicians, usually drawing Alcide De Gasperi, Aldo Moro and Enrico Berlinguer as examples of brilliant politicians who served more than two terms. Marco Travaglio replied that, for that sake, also the political life of much less popular Clemente Mastella would have suffered.^[18]

Grillo is criticized as being a mere demagogue who attacks politicians on superficial issues and their private lives while unable to provide a valid alternative. For instance, Daniele Luttazzi, famous Italian satirist, criticized Grillo in 2007 in an open letter published on the website of the news magazine Micromega. Luttazzi accused Grillo of being a "demagogue" and a "populist", suggesting Grillo to choose between satire and politics, asserting the two are incompatible.^[19]

In 2007 Grillo criticized the "Memorial Day of Foibe Massacres and Istrian-Dalmatian exodus" and the President of the Italian Repubblic Giorgio Napolitano^[20]

Filmography[link]

Grillo has appeared in three movies:

• Cercasi Gesù (1982)
• Scemo di Guerra (1985)
• Topo Galileo (1987)

In 2008, Grillo featured in the documentary, The Beppe Grillo Story, produced by Banyak Films for Al Jazeera English.

References[link]

External links[link]

Official websites[link]

• The English version of Beppe Grillo's personal blog
• Beppe Grillo's fans meeting map around the world

Other resources[link]

• 'Time' article about Grillo
• 'New York Times' video about Grillo
• 'New Yorker' Beppe’s Inferno

Nigel Farage MEP
Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party
Incumbent
Assumed office 5 November 2010
Preceded by	Jeffrey Titford
In office 27 September 2006 – 27 November 2009
Preceded by	Roger Knapman
Succeeded by	Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Member of the European Parliament for South East England
Incumbent
Assumed office 15 July 1999
Personal details
Born	(1964-04-03) 3 April 1964 (age 48) Kent, England, United Kingdom
Nationality	British
Political party	UK Independence Party
Spouse(s)	Gráinne Hayes (1988-1997, divorced) Kirsten Mehr (1999-present)
Children	4
Alma mater	Dulwich College
Religion	Church of England
Website	Nigel Farage MEP

Nigel Paul Farage ( /ˈfærɑːʒ/, FARR-ahzh;^[1] born 3 April 1964, Farnborough, Kent), is a British politician and is the Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP),^[2] a position he also held from September 2006 to November 2009. He is a Member of the European Parliament for South East England and co-chairs the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group.

Farage is a founding member of the UKIP, having left the Conservative Party in 1992 after they signed the Maastricht Treaty. Having unsuccessfully campaigned in European and Westminster parliamentary elections for UKIP since 1994, he gained a seat as an MEP for South East England in the 1999 European Parliament Election — the first year the regional list system was used — and was re-elected in 2004 and 2009. Farage describes himself as a libertarian and rejects the notion that he is a conservative.

In September 2006, Farage became the UKIP Leader and led the party through the 2009 European Parliament Election in which it received the second highest share of the popular vote, defeating Labour and the Liberal Democrats with over two million votes. However he stepped down in November 2009 to concentrate on contesting the Speaker John Bercow's seat of Buckingham in the 2010 general election.

At the 2010 General Election, Farage failed to unseat John Bercow and received only the third highest share of the vote in the constituency. Shortly after the polls opened on 6 May 2010, Nigel Farage was injured in an aircraft crash in Northamptonshire. The two-seated PZL-104 Wilga 35A had been towing a pro-UKIP banner when it flipped over and crashed shortly after takeoff. Both Farage and the pilot were hospitalised with non-life-threatening injuries.^[3]

In November 2010, Farage successfully stood in the 2010 UKIP leadership contest,^[4] following the resignation of its leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Farage was also ranked 41st (out of 100) in The Daily Telegraph's Top 100 most influential right-wingers poll in October 2009, citing his media savvy and his success with UKIP in the European Elections.^[5] Farage was ranked 58th in the 2010 list compiled by Iain Dale and Brian Brivati for the Daily Telegraph.

Background[link]

Farage was educated at Dulwich College before joining a commodity brokerage firm in London. He ran his own brokerage business from the early 1990s until 2002. In his early 20s Farage was diagnosed with testicular cancer but made a full recovery.^[6]

Farage has been married twice. He married Gráinne Hayes in 1988, with whom he had two children: Samuel (1989) and Thomas (1991). In 1999 he married Kirsten Mehr, a German national, by whom he has two more children, Victoria (born 2000) and Isabelle (born 2005).^[7]

Farage has also penned his own memoirs, entitled "Fighting Bull." It outlines the founding of UKIP and his personal and political life so far.

Political career[link]

Conservative Party[link]

Active in the Conservative Party from his school days, Farage left the party in 1992 when John Major's government signed the Treaty on European Union at Maastricht.

UKIP and the European Parliament[link]

Farage became a founding member of UKIP in 1993.

He was elected to the European Parliament in 1999 and re-elected in 2004 and 2009. Farage is presently the leader of the thirteen-member UKIP contingent in the European Parliament, and co-leader of the multinational eurosceptic group, Europe of Freedom and Democracy.

UKIP party leadership[link]

On 12 September 2006, Farage was elected leader of UKIP with 45% of the vote, 20% ahead of his nearest rival.^[8] He pledged to bring discipline to the party and to maximise UKIP's representation in local, parliamentary and other elections.^{[citation needed]} In a PM programme interview on BBC Radio 4 that day he pledged to end the public perception of UKIP as a single-issue party and to work with allied politicians in the Better Off Out campaign, committing himself not to stand against the MPs who have signed up to that campaign (ten in all at this moment).

At his maiden speech to the UKIP conference on 8 October 2006, he told delegates that the party was "at the centre-ground of British public opinion" and the "real voice of opposition". Farage said: "We've got three social democratic parties in Britain — Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are virtually indistinguishable from each other on nearly all the main issues" and "you can't put a cigarette paper between them and that is why there are nine million people who don't vote now in general elections that did back in 1992."^[9]

At 10pm on 19 October 2006, Farage took part in a three-hour live interview and phone-in with James Whale on national radio station talkSPORT. Four days later, Whale announced on his show his intention to stand as UKIP's candidate in the 2008 London Mayoral Election. Farage said that Whale "not only has guts, but an understanding of what real people think". However Whale later decided not to stand and UKIP was represented by Gerard Batten.^[10] He stood again for UKIP leadership in 2010 after his successor Lord Pearson stood down.^[4] On the 5th November 2010 it was announced Farage had won the leadership contest.^[11]

Westminster elections[link]

Farage had unsuccessfully contested UK parliamentary elections for UKIP five times, both before and after his election as an MEP in 1999. Under the 2002 European Union decision to forbid MEPs from holding a dual mandate, if he was ever elected to the House of Commons, he would have to resign his seat as an MEP.

When he contested the Bromley & Chislehurst constituency in a May 2006 by-election, organised after the sitting MP representing it, eurosceptic Conservative Eric Forth, died, Farage came third, winning 8% of the vote, beating the Labour Party candidate. This was the second-best by-election result recorded by UKIP out of 25 results, and the first time since the Liverpool Walton by-election in 1991 that a party in government had been pushed into fourth place in a parliamentary by-election on mainland Britain.

2010 UK General election[link]

On 4 September 2009 Farage resigned as leader of UKIP to concentrate on his campaign to become Member of Parliament for Buckingham at Westminster in the 2010 general election.^[12] He later told Times journalist Camilla Long that UKIP internal fights took up too much time.^[13]

He stood against Buckingham MP John Bercow, the newly elected Speaker of the House of Commons, despite a convention that the speaker, as a political neutral, is not normally challenged in his or her bid for re-election by any of the major parties.^[14]

On 6 May, on the morning the polls opened in the election, just before eight o'clock Farage was involved in a light aircraft crash, suffering injuries described as non-life-threatening. A spokesperson told the BBC that "it was unlikely Mr Farage would be discharged from hospital today [6 May]^[15] Although his injuries were originally described as minor, his sternum and ribs were broken, and his lung punctured.^[16] The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) report said that the aeroplane was towing a banner, which caught in the tailplane, forcing the nose down.^[17]

Farage came third with 8,401 votes. Bercow was re-elected, and in second place with 10,331 votes was John Stevens, a former Conservative MEP who campaigned as an independent accompanied by "Flipper the Dolphin" (a reference to MPs flipping second homes).^[18]

On 1 December 2010, the pilot of the aircraft involved in the accident was charged with threatening to kill Farage. He was also charged with threatening to kill an AAIB official involved in the investigation into the accident.^[19] In April 2011, Justin Adams was found guilty of making death threats. The judge said the defendant was "clearly extremely disturbed" at the time the offences happened adding "He is a man who does need help. If I can find a way of giving him help I will."^[20]

Alternative Vote referendum, May 2011[link]

Farage declared himself personally in favour of the Alternative Vote system of May 2011, saying first-past-the-post is a "nightmare" for UKIP. However, the party's stance has to be decided by its central policy making committee.^[21]

May 2012 London Mayor & Local elections[link]

In a "bizarre cock-up," UKIP forgot to put their party name on their candidate's ballot paper for the London mayoral election, 2012^[22], Laurence Webb appearing as "A fresh choice for London." Farage admitted the mistake describing it as an internal error.^[22]
Interviewed by the following Sunday by Andrew Neil and asked about "the game plan", Farage welcomed the "average 13% vote" across the country, and stated that the party was preparing for County council in 2013, European elections in 2014 and a general election in 2015.^[23] The party was no longer just a protest vote, it would have a full manifesto with policies including selective schools, help to small businesses by "getting rid of excessive labour practices" and an energy policy not based on wind turbines.^[23] UKIP was here to stay ..frankly the Tory Eurosceptics were in the wrong party and would be better off joining UKIP. Asked what would happen to UKIP if the Tories made a Manifesto commitment to a European referendum, Farage said they had already failed to honour a "cast iron" commitment for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.^[23]

Challenging Farange's viewpoint, Neil said UKIP aspired to come top of the European elections but whilst UKIP wanted to join the big time, they were still seen as "unprofessional, amateur and even unacceptable" after their press officer called Baroness Warsi "a bitch".^[23] Farage regretted "the wrong choice of words" but further described Warsi as "the lowest grade chairman the Tory party has ever had."^[23] Neil then mocked the so called internal error which had made Farage "a joke".^[23] "The blunt truth is" UKIP "didn't win any more seats, the performance in London was terrible and they were still a one man band."^[23] Farage conceded London was a failure but they had won council seats elsewhere. He invited Tories who couldn't stand Cameron to help him.^[23]

Controversies and whistleblowing[link]

Copyright infringement[link]

In 1999 the BBC spent four months filming a documentary about his European elections campaign but didn't show it. Farage, then head of UKIP's South East office, asked for a video and got friends to make illegal copies which were sold for £5 through the UKIP magazine. Surrey Trading Standards investigated and Farage has admitted the offence.^[24]

Expenses disclosure[link]

In May 2009, The Guardian reported that Farage had said in a speech to the Foreign Press Association that over ten years as a member of the European Parliament he received £2 million of taxpayers' money in staff, travel, and other expenses on top of his £64,000 a year salary.^[25]

The former Europe Minister, Denis MacShane, said that this showed that Farage was "happy to line his pockets with gold". Farage called this a "misrepresentation",^[26] pointing out that the money had been used to promote UKIP's message and staff salaries, not his own salary, but he welcomed the focus on the issue of MEP expenses, claiming that "[o]ver a five year term each and every one of Britain's 78 MEPs gets about £1 million. It is used to employ administrative staff, run their offices and to travel back and forth between their home, Brussels and Strasbourg."^[27]

Jacques Barrot[link]

On 18 November 2004, Farage announced in the European Parliament that Jacques Barrot, the French Commissioner designate, had been barred from elected office in France for 2 years, after being convicted in 2000 of embezzling £2 million from government funds and diverting it into the coffers of his party. He claimed that French President Jacques Chirac had granted Barrot amnesty. Although initial BBC reports claimed that, under French law, it was illegal even to mention the conviction,^[28] the prohibition in question only applies to French officials in the course of their duties.^[29] The president of the Parliament, Josep Borrell, enjoined him to retract his comments under threat of "legal consequences".^[30] However, the following day it was confirmed that Barrot had received an 8 month suspended jail sentence in the case, and that this had been quickly expunged by the amnesty decided by Chirac and his parliamentary majority. The Commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso admitted that he had not known of Barrot's criminal record when appointing him as a Commission vice-president.^{[citation needed]} The Socialist and Liberal groups in the European Parliament then joined UKIP in demanding the resignation of Barrot for failing to disclose the conviction during his confirmation hearings.

José Manuel Barroso[link]

During the spring of 2005, Farage requested that the European Commission disclose where the individual Commissioners had spent their holidays. The Commission did not provide the information requested, on the basis that the Commissioners had a right of privacy. The German newspaper Die Welt reported that the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso had spent a week on the yacht of the Greek shipping billionaire Spiro Latsis. It emerged soon afterwards that this had occurred a month before the Commission under Barroso's predecessor Romano Prodi approved 10.3 million euro of Greek state aid for Latsis' shipping company.^[31] It also became known that Peter Mandelson, then a member of the Commission, had accepted a trip to Jamaica from an unrevealed source.

Farage persuaded around 75 MEPs from across the political divide to back a motion of no confidence in Barroso, which would be sufficient to compel Barroso to appear before the European Parliament to be questioned on the issue.^[32] The motion was successfully tabled on 12 May 2005, and Barroso appeared before Parliament^[33] at a debate on 26 May 2005. The motion was heavily defeated. A Conservative MEP, Roger Helmer, was expelled from his group, the European People's Party - European Democrats (EPP-ED) in the middle of the debate by that group's leader Hans-Gert Poettering as a result of his support for Farage's motion.

Joseph Daul[link]

In January 2007, the French farmers' leader Joseph Daul was elected the new leader of the European People's Party–European Democrats (EPP-ED), the European Parliamentary grouping which then included the British Conservatives. The UK Independence Party almost immediately revealed that Daul had been under judicial investigation in France since 2004 as part of an inquiry into the alleged misuse of public funds worth €16 million (£10.6 million) by French farming unions."^[34] It was not suggested that Daul had personally benefited, but was accused of "complicity and concealment of the abuse of public funds." Daul accused Farage of publicising the investigation for political reasons and threatened to sue Farage, but did not do so though the court dropped all charges against him.

Prince Charles[link]

Prince Charles gave a speech to the European Parliament on 14 February 2008, in which he called for EU leadership in the war against climate change. During the standing ovation that followed, Farage was the only MEP to remain seated and went on to describe the Prince's advisers as "naïve and foolish at best."^[35] Farage continued: "How can somebody like Prince Charles be allowed to come to the European Parliament at this time to announce he thinks it should have more powers? It would have been better for the country he wants to rule one day if he had stayed home and tried to persuade Gordon Brown to give the people the promised referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon." The leader of the UK Labour Party's MEPs, Gary Titley, accused Farage of anti-Royalism. Titley said: "I was embarrassed and disgusted when the Leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, remained firmly seated during the lengthy standing ovation Prince Charles received. I had not realised Mr Farage's blind adherence to right wing politics involved disloyalty and discourtesy to the Royal Family. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and should apologise to the British people he represents."^[35]

Herman Van Rompuy[link]

After the speech of Herman Van Rompuy on 24 February 2010 in the European parliament, Farage—to protests from other MEPs—addressed the first long-term President of the European Council saying that he has the "charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of low grade bank clerk".^[36] Farage questioned the legitimacy of Van Rompuy's appointment asking "Who are you? I'd never heard of you, nobody in Europe had ever heard of you", he also asserted that Van Rompuy's "intention is to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European nation states."^[36] In the same speech he also referred to Belgium, the home of Van Rompuy, as "pretty much a non-country".^[37] Van Rompuy commented afterwards, "There was one contribution that I can only hold in contempt, but I'm not going to comment further."^[36] After refusing to apologise for behaviour that was, in the words of the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, "inappropriate, unparliamentary and insulting to the dignity of the House", Farage was reprimanded and had his right to ten days' allowance (expenses) rescinded.^{[38] [39]}

The President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, said after his meeting with Farage:

I defend absolutely Mr Farage's right to disagree about the policy or institutions of the Union, but not to personally insult our guests in the European Parliament or the country from which they may come. [. . .] I myself fought for free speech as the absolute cornerstone of a democratic society. But with freedom comes responsibility - in this case, to respect the dignity of others and of our institutions. I am disappointed by Mr Farage's behaviour, which sits ill with the great parliamentary tradition of his own country. I cannot accept this sort of behaviour in the European Parliament. I invited him to apologise, but he declined to do so. I have therefore - as an expression of the seriousness of the matter - rescinded his right to ten days' daily allowance as a Member.^[39]

Questioned by Camilla Long, Farage declared of his speech "it wasn't abusive, it was right."^[13]

European economic governance[link]

He spoke of the EU being "German-dominated" in a speech at the European-Parliament on 18 November 2011.^[40]

Views on the euro[link]

From taking office as a UKIP MEP in 1999, Farage has often voiced opposition to the "euro project". His argument is that "a one size fits all interest rate" cannot work for countries with structurally different economies, often using the example of Greece and Germany to emphasise contrast. He predicted the need for 'bailouts' before European Commission and European Central Bank officials admitted that these steps would be necessary. Specifically, Farage predicted that Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain would all require such assistance. To date, Spain is the only predicted country that has not asked for a 'bailout'. Although Spain and Italy have both had indirect assistance from the ECB, whereby secondary government bonds are bought by the central bank, they are prohibited from purchasing new bonds. Farage warns: "You can ignore the markets if you want to, but in time the markets will not ignore you". Farage also reinforces Germany's argument that Italy "should never have joined the euro".

Farage predicts that if the situation continues it will lead to violence due to the people's inability to "determine their own futures through the ballot box" as it will become the only "logical" tool to enable them to escape from their "economic prison" i.e. the Eurozone. He proclaims "I can only hope and pray that the euro project is destroyed by the markets before that really happens."

Farage strongly opposes the use of 'bailouts' and claims that "buying your own debt with tax payers money" will not solve the problem and that, "if we do, the next debt crisis won't be a country", "it will be the European Central Bank itself".^[41][42]

Electoral performance[link]

Nigel Farage has contested several elections under the United Kingdom Independence Party banner:

• Itchen, Test and Avon, European Parliament Election 1994 - 12,423 votes, representing 5.2% of total votes cast
• Eastleigh by-election, 1994 - 952, 1.4%
• Salisbury, 1997 general election - 3,332, 5.7%
• European Parliament election, 1999 - elected member for South East England from party list
• Bexhill and Battle, 2001 general election - 3,474, 7.8%
• European Parliament election, 2004 - elected member for South East England from party list
• South Thanet, 2005 general election - 2,079, 5.0%
• Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006 - 2,307, 8.0%
• European Parliament election, 2009 - elected member for South East England from party list.
• Buckingham, 2010 general election - 8,410, 17.4%

Footnotes[link]

References[link]

• 2002 Amnesty law
• Penal Code, articles L133-9, L133-10, L133-11

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Nigel Farage

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Nigel Farage

• Nigel Farage MEP Official website
• Nigel Farage on Twitter
• Nigel Farage Profile at European Parliament website
• UKIP MEPs Official website of the UK Independence Party in the European Parliament
• Europe of Freedom and Democracy Political group in the European Parliament