Jacob Christensen

We are told that the youth organisation of the Conservative Party will be opposing the proposed amendment to the Succession Act which changes the order of succession from the present agnatic-cognatic succession to one of absolute primogeniture (explanation of the terms here).

The question now is: Will this have an impact on the referendum on June 7?

The problem is that there is an overwhelming consensus among politicians and voters for changing the order of succession while the new act (provided Prince Christian doesn’t suffer a fatal accident before he has any children) will not have any relevance for the next 80 or so years. So, why bother. The lowest turn-out in a Danish referendum was in 1961 when only 37 per cent of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote in favour of lowering the age of suffrage from 23 to 21 years. This wasn’t a problem then as the clause in ordinary referendums is negative – you need a relative majority of more than 30 per cent of the electorate in order to stop a bill – but a low turn-out can be a problem in a constitutional referendum.

Generally, KU is not considered the most relevant of political organisations so the initiative is not likely to have any major impact. But having a bit of a controversy may be what the bill needs.

And here is a shapshot of today’s European Parliament campaigning in Odense. Crowds were … well …

The general rule in Denmark is: Throw away a billion kroner and you’re safe, throw away one thousand kroner and you’re dead politically. Despite one British government minister blowing 200.000 GBP on a flat as parliamentary expenses, we’re still in the 1.000 kroner-territory.

Somebody must have cast a very evil spell on Gordon Brown. And the next election is one year out in the future – my guess is that just like the Conservatives in the 1992-1997 term, Labour will hold out for as long as possible, especially if the European Parliament election turns out to be a total melt-down.