[Part 1 was published yesterday, you can read it here.]
Governing party majority not necessary to bring about Brexit
It is not necessary for a governing political party to command a Parliamentary majority in order to get laws passed. This can be done by sensible argument, as recent votes have demonstrated.
It is not necessary or indeed desirable to hold an early General Election just because the government cannot get their version of Brexit passed into law.
MP’s are constituency MP’s even though the majority of them are elected on a political party basis. As such they have a duty to their constituency and to their country which should override their duty to their party. This includes respecting and delivering on the 2016 UK EU referendum result.
Guernsey: one of many examples of a Parliament which is effective without any “governing” majority.
It is worth noting what some other jurisdictions do in respect of their Parliamentary procedures to see that they can still be involved with policy implementation, even when it might vary from that of the governing politicians.
When the pact was agreed between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the Crown Dependency of Guernsey argued that they were the forerunner of coalition agreements, as they were a coalition of Independents.
As a former elected Member of the Guernsey Parliament for thirteen years ( 1991-2004), I can attest to the fact that all the elected representatives are Independents and they vote in their senior members of government themselves from among their elected colleagues. Although there is no “opposition” any elected member/s can make alternative political proposals to those favoured by the government, and this is an accepted part of the representative democracy there.
Similarly, we should not be upset if in the UK Parliament, elected Members do not support government proposals from time to time. Guernsey, like numerous jurisdictions, has had fixed term Parliaments for years, and the UK should not change the Fixed Term Parliament Act of September 2011 for what appears to be party political expediency.
Speaker’s fault?
We should also not be upset with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, for his influencing of debates.
It is said he has a remainer bias and some of his decisions have been questioned. However, in other Parliamentary democracies, it would be deemed perfectly in order for Members to make their own proposals and amendments.
It is also perfectly in order for a Parliament to want to scrutinise legislation and amend it where appropriate.
It did the Leave side no good at all to be seen to be wanting to rush through a very poor Brexit Bill, whereas some of the Remainers were seen as wanting to do this job properly.
Has Dominic Cumming’s advice faltered or been ignored ?
It seems that Boris Johnson is either being given poor advice on the Brexit issue by his strategist Dominic Cummings, or simply making poor judgements himself. None of this is helping the Brexit cause.
It is a reminder of the fact that there were two Brexit campaigns during the referendum campaign, in competition with each other.
Would the Election achieve a changed Parliament?
This call for an Election is based on trying to get this fake Brexit deal through Parliament.
The government is demanding that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is circumvented by goading the opposition MP’s into voting for an election.
If this election was granted and if the Conservatives are successful, it could result in either a betrayal through no delivery of Brexit or the pretend Johnson/May deal.
In other words those who voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum will have been let down and their faith in democracy damaged beyond repair.
If the Labour and/or other parties are successful, it is highly unlikely that Brexit will ever be delivered at all.
It appears that Boris Johnson is basically taking a huge gamble and assuming the Conservatives will gain seats and a big workable majority to get this “deal” through.
He and his advisers have not taken into account how fed up the public is with the Conservative government of many years. The public could be attracted by the blatant remainer Liberal Democrats or the alternative social programme of the Labour party.
Or they could vote elsewhere. Unless UKIP stages a remarkable recovery, they have little chance indeed.
However, The Brexit Party, if they distance themselves from the Conservative party and take on at least a couple of radical new policies which are attractive to supporters of all parties, could break into power and ensure there is a clean break Brexit.
Is the alternative answer that of an agreement to hold an Election for a Parliament which would sit for eighteen months before another Election has to be called ?
Another problem with breaking the Fixed Term of Parliament is that it is publicly being asked for in respect of one reason – that of Brexit – but the reality is that the election is for the next five years. The public could be voting for one party to achieve Brexit but then getting a lot of other policies they did not really want.
This is why the only reasonable reason for an early General Election should be for a period of say eighteen months, on the subject of getting the Brexit issues resolved, and then having another General Election at the end of that period. This would have to be in the resolution.
That is the only way there could be a benefit in having an early General Election, and it should be as early as possible, not December 12th. Indeed many prefer the earlier option.
To answer the Question …
Remain Conservatives benefit from an early G.E.
It may take several weeks before voters realise that BoJos great “deal” is a sham.
(It certainly isn’t the “Trade Deal” discussed during the Referendum)
EU illusionists – abetted by broadcasters – have encouraged misdirection away from the core “Surrender Treaty” with the hoax “problem” of the Irish border.
It was never hard for the EU to make “concessions” on that – as long as 95% of the May W.A. remained intact.
How can the W.A. be “Leaving” when it:
– defines “Member State” to include the UK (but without a vote)
– an “Authority” “equivalent to the Commission” to supervise the W.A.
– all EU laws – including new ones to apply to the UK
– the ECJ to “interpret” the W.A.
– still paying £ billions to the EU
– a presumption in favour of the W.A. extending …. indefinitely.
If only the ERG would point out the UK’s exit clause – independent of the EU.
In two parts you have focused on the problem and presented some solutions, clearing up some misunderstandings on the way.
The shenanigans of the parliamentary parties have confused many where personal biases and propaganda have compounded that confusion.
For me what you are laying bare is the sheer selfishness of the party system that dominates our politics. MPs are negligent to the wishes of their constituents and to the promises they made to become elected.
Yes perhaps TBP may contribute to a solution and it has appeared to hold the Conservatives to account, but it cannot be the answer and whatever answer it provides will fall short of what is required.
We are clutching at straws as Halloween draws nigh. It is clear that the public want Brexit but most certainly not clear that they want more of the Conservatives. Ironic that it was Labour saying ‘we cannot vote for this terrible deal’. Well, who can disagree, please do not vote for that terrible deal, but who then, could possibly trust Labour.
More allegiance is paid to their corresponding parties by the MPs than their constituency members. Can that be right?
I want a train crash preferable very close to a cliff edge, or at least into the brick wall of Halloween.
What will be left? What we have needed for a long time, a complete rethink of our politics. We could start by seriously looking at Guernsey. Fixed term parliaments may not then be relevant but the ability of voters to get rid of self-serving and negligent MPs at any time surely must be an option.
Forget the ‘Trick or Treat’, the Dracula masks and all the little ‘***’ making a nuisance of themselves, Halloween will be scary enough without any props.
Thank you for the article.
There are many variations of voting, as can be seen in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann, and then there is Westminster for the whole of the UK/GB. – Those islands have a very real and general connect with the UK, and yet they have domestic self Government. – Our old Nations within our Union, of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, have had their domestic politics and yet remain in connect with the Westminster Government. Notice here that England is Governed by the general Parliament of all domestic Nations. Also note that England, without its own separate Governing body, passes money out to the others ! ….. Something is amiss in this arrangement !
I have never been in favour of reginal Government, because apart from all else, it adds further cost to the act of administration, which tax payers get lumbered with. – As we have seen with Scotland, Nationalism has taken centre stage with the threat of separation from the UK. A foolish take is then raised by independence, which would be handed over to the EU and therefore would not be independence at all. Also it seems to be taken for granted that the EU would want another costly member. The Scotts should remember The Darien Scheme of 1690-1700, so keenly taken up by so many, and so much Scottish money was lost upon that scheme.
Our FPTP vote system was only democratic when Wiggs and Tories were the political Parties, although the vote was not given to all the people at that time, so since the beginnings of the Labour Party, we have had Democracy minus, and today with more Parties than ever, the FPTP system is not fit for purpose. The right form of PR is required now for elections, preferably on a pan UK basis. It is said, and is correct, that we would have coalition Governments. – Personally I see nothing wrong with that as it would keep extremes out of Government, and every vote would count unlike the FPTP mess that is far from proper Democracy. While we are considering this, who said that we must have a local MP ? – Why not make use of the title of Mayor ? – We elect local Councillors so why not elect the Mayor with a connect to Westminster as the voice of a City or Town ? Rural areas would be connected to the nearest Town. – Some MPs with a local connect might prefer to be a Mayor !
No I do not agree with Anthony Webber. He should not argue from what happens in Guernsey to what should happen in UK. It is clear that there is no chance of reasoned debate in our Rotten Parliament. ALL our MPs are intent on retaining their seats which in our system for years has been a case of being financed by their Party. Anthony is also wrong about the FTPA. If it works in Guernsey, it does not here. It has kept MPs in their seats when they have directly opposed the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent.
BREXIT has been a catalyst. It has made obvious that our system is not as robust as we thought. Two things that have weakened it spring to mind. One is the FTPA, the other is making our Supreme Court an EU body instead of the House of Lords. Undoubtedly there were good arguments for doing those things BUT it has turned out that they were mistakes.
Meanwhile we have MPs on opposition benches either blatantly wanting to stop Brexit or saying they want a different Brexit. MPs on Government side wanting to call BRINO, Brexit. ALL of them doing what they think will keep them on the green benches for as long as possible and hoping the electorate will forget all about it by the day of reckoning.
Well, the Electorate probably will not forget. We have already set up ‘Populist Parties’ to break the old Elites. Sooner or later it will happen here as it has already within the EU. Look forward to continuing chaos.
Pauline,
I agree.
Pauline. I also agree witj you
Would agree with this interpretation of the Brexit debate. Boris has had his chance. Over to you Nigel.