THE EUROPEAN UNION BILL
Proposed Question Objections to the Proposed Question
Which is: ‘Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?
(1) The use of the incorrect title which should be ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. The proposed question reads as if it refers to a Constitution for the organs of the European Union rather than deploying a framework of government for the whole of Europe including the United Kingdom. Nick Sparrow of ICM commented, ‘And the question does not mention Britain. It sounds as if the Constitution is for someone else’ quoted [Vote NO Bulletin 16]. The Electoral Commission has noted the incorrect wording but does not appear to have done a formal study of the difference (see point (6) below).
(2) The wording on point (1) breaches the ‘brevity’ guideline of the Electoral Commission as the proposed and incorrect wording of the Treaty in the proposed question is longer than the actual Treaty title [Guideline 9].
(3) The Treaty does not exist – it is a proposed Treaty and the word ‘proposed’ must be included [see Article IV-447 of the proposed Treaty].
The current wording suggests that the Treaty is already in place.
(4) The government’s proposed question includes the word ‘approve’ despite the Electoral Commission’s guidelines warning against such a word as it may imply that something is a positive concept [Guideline 2].
Nick Sparrow of ICM Research commented ‘We would never allow a client to get away with that question. It merely mentions “approve” which itself invites a positive response’ [Vote NO Bulletin 16].
(5) Yea saying.
Nick Sparrow of ICM (Sunday Telegraph, 30/1/05) said ‘The referendum question as the government has announced it does point people towards a ‘YES’ answer and uses warm words such as “approve”.’. It does not include the opposite to approve, i.e. to disapprove.
The question should avoid the yea saying phenomenon (documented in polling literature) by using words both for a voter to express a positive or negative answer on the question.
The question proposed by the Dutch government is a fair question on this point.
(6) The wording of the question does not make it clear that the Treaty applies to the United Kingdom. This is a somewhat different point to item (1). Item (1) refers to a misleading effect of the question directing the voter to the institutions of the European Union. This point clarifies that the Treaty on establishing a Constitution for Europe also applies to the member state. It is not a Constitution relating only to a supra-national entity called Europe.
A PROPOSED FAIR QUESTION
a) The proposed question in The Netherlands is:
‘Are you for or against The Netherlands agreeing to the Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe?’.
This question meets the objections outlined above in (1), (2), (4) and (5). The Netherlands’ question does not, however, meet objections (3) and (6). It does not mention the word ‘proposed’ and does not make it clear it applies to The Netherlands.
b) A fair question, re-working The Netherlands’ proposed question, would be as follows:
‘Do you agree or do you disagree that the proposed Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe should apply to the United Kingdom’.
OR
‘Are you for or against the proposed Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe applying to the United Kingdom?’
FUTURUS/16 May 2005
(1) The use of the incorrect title which should be ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. The proposed question reads as if it refers to a Constitution for the organs of the European Union rather than deploying a framework of government for the whole of Europe including the United Kingdom. Nick Sparrow of ICM commented, ‘And the question does not mention Britain. It sounds as if the Constitution is for someone else’ quoted [Vote NO Bulletin 16]. The Electoral Commission has noted the incorrect wording but does not appear to have done a formal study of the difference (see point (6) below).
(2) The wording on point (1) breaches the ‘brevity’ guideline of the Electoral Commission as the proposed and incorrect wording of the Treaty in the proposed question is longer than the actual Treaty title [Guideline 9].
(3) The Treaty does not exist – it is a proposed Treaty and the word ‘proposed’ must be included [see Article IV-447 of the proposed Treaty].
The current wording suggests that the Treaty is already in place.
(4) The government’s proposed question includes the word ‘approve’ despite the Electoral Commission’s guidelines warning against such a word as it may imply that something is a positive concept [Guideline 2].
Nick Sparrow of ICM Research commented ‘We would never allow a client to get away with that question. It merely mentions “approve” which itself invites a positive response’ [Vote NO Bulletin 16].
(5) Yea saying.
Nick Sparrow of ICM (Sunday Telegraph, 30/1/05) said ‘The referendum question as the government has announced it does point people towards a ‘YES’ answer and uses warm words such as “approve”.’. It does not include the opposite to approve, i.e. to disapprove.
The question should avoid the yea saying phenomenon (documented in polling literature) by using words both for a voter to express a positive or negative answer on the question.
The question proposed by the Dutch government is a fair question on this point.
(6) The wording of the question does not make it clear that the Treaty applies to the United Kingdom. This is a somewhat different point to item (1). Item (1) refers to a misleading effect of the question directing the voter to the institutions of the European Union. This point clarifies that the Treaty on establishing a Constitution for Europe also applies to the member state. It is not a Constitution relating only to a supra-national entity called Europe.
A PROPOSED FAIR QUESTION
a) The proposed question in The Netherlands is:
‘Are you for or against The Netherlands agreeing to the Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe?’.
This question meets the objections outlined above in (1), (2), (4) and (5). The Netherlands’ question does not, however, meet objections (3) and (6). It does not mention the word ‘proposed’ and does not make it clear it applies to The Netherlands.
b) A fair question, re-working The Netherlands’ proposed question, would be as follows:
‘Do you agree or do you disagree that the proposed Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe should apply to the United Kingdom’.
OR
‘Are you for or against the proposed Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe applying to the United Kingdom?’
FUTURUS/16 May 2005