Update Wednesday morning: With Labour finally backing an election, the Commons overwhelmingly passed on Tuesday a bill setting the election for Thursday, December 12. An amendment to hold the election on December 9 was rejected by 315 votes to 295. The bill now goes to the House of Lords, where it is expected to pass quickly. The Commons will be dissolved next Wednesday.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at The University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
On Monday, despite some objections from French President Emmanuel Macron, the European Union agreed to a Brexit extension until January 31. However, Labour still does not appear to want an election, and so Monday’s vote on whether to hold an election will not achieve the two-thirds majority required.
However, the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party (SNP) will assist by voting for a bill setting a December 9 election date. Legislation only requires a simple majority to pass. The government is likely to support this bill if they cannot win Monday’s vote. Commentator Stephen Bush wrote that Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is likely to pass eventually if parliament continues sitting, and so it makes sense for Remainers to vote for an election in the hope that the Conservatives will be defeated.
The Conservatives currently have a double digit lead over Labour in the polls. This partly reflects the greater unity of the Leave vote, with Labour and the Lib Dems both opposed to Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal and no-deal, but the Lib Dems appealing to pure Remainers. The Conservatives received a further boost after agreeing the deal with the EU. Voting with the Conservatives to hold an election could damage the Lib Dems with Remain voters.
As we all know, Leave won the 2016 Brexit referendum by 51.9% to 48.1%. The trouble since then has stemmed from Leave being undefined. But had there been a clear proposal for Leave at that referendum, it would probably have lost – see the Australian 1999 Republic referendum. There would have been people who wanted to Leave in principle, but not with that particular deal.
Now that there is a clear Brexit proposal, it will be attacked during an election campaign by both Labour and Nigel Farage’s Brexit party. And there is plenty about the deal to attack from a left perspective.
Bush wrote that the proposed deal would mean a hard Brexit. If the UK leaves under this deal, a no-deal Brexit could occur in December 2020 once the transition period ends. If the Conservatives win the next election, there will probably either be a high-divergence Brexit, or a no-deal Brexit by December 2020.
The more Labour can turn the election into a referendum on Johnson’s deal, the greater their chance of winning.
Left wins Argentine presidential election
At the October 27 Argentine election, the centre-left candidate, Alberto Fernández, defeated the conservative incumbent president, Mauricio Macri, by a 48.0% to 40.5% margin. 45% or more was needed to avoid a runoff. Polls had predicted a Fernández win by almost 20 points. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was a controversial left-wing president from 2007 to 2015, returns as vice president.
Left-wing parties have performed well in recent national elections in Portugal, Canada, Argentina, Switzerland and Bolivia (see below). Does this mean the general trend to the right globally can or will be halted?
Election updates: Israel, the US, Switzerland and Bolivia
Right-wing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was unable to form a government, and returned the mandate on October 21. On October 23, the Israeli president nominated the left-leaning Blue & White leader Benny Gantz to attempt to form a government, and he has four weeks from that date. Expectations are that Gantz will also fail, and that elections will be required for the third time in a year.
Most US states hold their elections concurrently with federal elections, but there are a few state elections on November 5. Virginia and New Jersey will hold legislative elections, while Kentucky and Mississippi hold gubernatorial elections. Given presidential leans of these states, I expect Democrats to hold New Jersey and gain Virginia’s legislature, but Republicans to hold Kentucky and Mississippi.
On my personal website, I wrote about the Greens’ surge at the October 20 Swiss election, where a unique system of executive government is used. Also covered: the left-wing Bolivian president was re-elected for a fourth successive term, the far-right dominates Hungarian local elections despite a setback in Budapest, and the far-right surges in German and Italian October 27 state elections.
“Left-wing parties have performed well in recent national elections in Portugal, Canada, Argentina, Switzerland and Bolivia (see below). Does this mean the general trend to the right globally can or will be halted?”
***
Can be halted? Of course it can. Is it being halted? Yes, to some degree. The pendulum is swinging. There’s not really been a trend to the right though considering the entrenched establishment is right wing/conservative in many of these countries, such as the US. All we’ve really seen is the establishment being the establishment. The US is heavily skewed to the right, so much so that a moderate centre-left politician like Sanders is labelled “radical”.
Oh and yes, Trump is as establishment as they come. His election was no great shift. His style and personality may be different (he’s just a rude pig, to be honest) but when it comes to the substance he’s just another corporate elitist pissing all over the masses with the con of trickle down economics.
Much thanks for latest observations
re uk early election………… there is no need for this unless a no confidence vote passes. the calling of early elections is contrary to having a fixed term law
Previous thread.
Boris Johnson, as expected, got nowhere even close to getting the two thirds majority he needed to get the early election vote up.
Just to clarify, the suggestion is that the SNP, Lib Dems and the Conservatives may support a bill bringing about a December 9 election, which would only need a simple majority. My understanding though, and I may have misread this, was that they would only go through with supporting this if Boris Johnson agreed not to push through his deal before an election took place. Again though, I may have that completely wrong. Whatever happens though, surely the UK is heading for an election.
I do think the election, in spite of current polls, is still up for grabs. As suggested above, Boris Johnson’s deal will be attacked from the left, with particular likely attack lines being that it is a threat to the NHS, and a threat to the rights of workers. It will also be attacked by the Brexit Party as not being anything like a true Brexit, (this is already happening), and they will argue that the only way out is a “clean break” or no deal Brexit. I expect that this argument will have appeal on the right. The Conservatives will certainly start favourites, but another hung Parliament would not surprise me.
If the UK does decide on an early election I expect two themes will dominate. The Tories will push “democracy” and “will of the people”, harking back to 2016. The rest will push “you can’t trust the Tories”, pointing out Johnson’s cavalier relationship with his friends, such as the DUP who kept the Tories in power for 3 years only to be dumped when it suited him, and the “even worse than May” deal Johnson agreed to with the EU.
Will the Brexit party split the Conservative vote?
Will the LibDems split Labour’s vote?
Has frustration reached a tipping point?
Will the UK have another “Winter of Discontent“?
New thread, so I get to repeat something already posted. 🙂
Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that a new election is OK to resolve the current impass but another referendum isn’t? So in that vein, a bill to bypass the FTPA and hold an early election would work, or so I’ve read. But a bill opens the door to amendments. Could an amendment to hold a referendum be attached to such a bill?
The choice will come down to Corbyn or Brexit. Voters are gonna love that.
this is like a poker game………. who win? this the unknown
weren’t the polls wrong prior to 2017 election
also an election held now would lose 5he Torys possibly all their seats on Scotland and maybe Wales
With respect to the Consrvatives losing every seat in Scotland and Wales, I was asking myself how many of the 650 parliamentary seats are English, when I found this.
https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review/
If the Boundary Commission’s recomendations have been legislated then England represents 501 seats out of 600. Do the Conservatives think they can win 301 seats in England alone?
(Apologies for the poor spelling in my posts today. My spell checker has stopped working.)
Plenty of shadow boxing here.
1. The Remainers have a huge majority in the Lords, and they can delay any Bill for a year if they feel like it. Consequently there is zero actual pressure on the Lib Dems and SNP to agree to an early election for fear of Boris’s deal passing. The Lords will block it anyway.
2. Moreover it is obvious that the “swing” MPs who voted for the deal but against the timetable motion for the Bill are going to be quite happy with any number of wrecking amendments putting poison pills into the Deal Bill. So no clean Deal Bill will pass.
3. So there’s going to be no election, because nobody wants one except Boris. The Lib Dem and SNP thing is just a stunt to make it look like they’re not as scared of an election as Labour. (Both SNP and Lib Dems would gain seats in a new election, but their position is much more powerful with fewer seats in a hung Parliament than with more seats in a Tory majority Parliament.)
4. The Lords btw can also delay an override of the FTPA for a year.
5. It is a genuine mystery as to why Boris keeps trying the 2/3 majority route to an election. It’s obviously just for show but we’ve seen the show several times already. What’s the point ?
6. So the UK is set for the same game pre 31 Jan as we’ve had pre 31 Oct. The Remainers will spin it out till they’re ahead in the polls or until 2022, when the FTPA deadline kicks in.
7. We do not know why Boris did not block the Benn Bill, either by filibustering in the Lords or refusing Royal Assent. Whatever the reason it’s hard to see now that he would use those weapons to force a hard 31 Jan deadline. This pantomime is set for a long run.
8. The Remainers best shot to block Brexit by far is for Corbyn to resign, and for Labour to elect someone – anyone – else. Then the election odds would flip against Boris.
9. Failing that, the best bet is to keep on delaying in the hope of a good strong recession. Recessions never benefit the sitting government.
But when will the 27 other EU members run out of patience?
I read a joke (admittedly not a good one) that in 100 years the EU will be observing an annual ritual whose beginning has been lost to history, wherein the British Prime Minister goes to Brussels to ask for an “extension”. No-one will know what is being extended but everyone will agree that it has.
LR,
I can see another tradition setting in, where at the start of every sitting week the PM ritually asks for permission to call an election, and the parliament ceremonially refuses for five years.
Late Riser : Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that a new election is OK to resolve the current impass but another referendum isn’t?
I don’t believe so. The referendum was billed as a one off decision. This is analagous to a coin toss to settle an argument. You can have a single coin toss, or you can have best-of-three, or best-of-five. But if you settle on one coin toss, and then demand best-of-three when you lose the first one, that’s cheating in any playground in the world.
Moreover why a “second” referendum ? The Leavers aren’t even being offered a retrospective best of three deal. It’s heads I win, tails you win. Tails. Oh, that was a close one ! Let’s do it again and if you win 2-0 then we promise to go with that. But if we get an equaliser, then we win. OK ? Why would Leavers even bother to vote second time round ? What reason would they have for trusting the promise that this time the other side really really means to keep their promise to respect the result ? And why should 1-1 be a winning score for Remain, but Leavers have to win 2-0 ?
There’s no reason at all why there shouldn’t be a second referendum after the first referendum decision has been implemented. But it hasn’t been. All we have established is that referendums are a waste of time, because Parliament is happy to ignore them if it doesn’t like the result.
Elections are different. They happen over and over again. They happen according to pre-agreed rules according to pre-agreed timetables (with pre-agreed twiddles and overrides that Boris can’t currently get agreement to implement.) And – critically – the result of each election is implemented. Defeated MPs go home and weep, and then try and get a reality TV gig. Victorious MPs take their seats and get stuck in to fiddling their expenses. Then, later on, there’s another election, which also gets implemented.
What we don’t have is an election where one side wins, the other side says “Whew that was a close one, let’s have another election and in the meantime we’ll ignore that first election.”
The problem with the 2016 referendum is that people were asked to vote on an idea, nothing more. Basically, people were asked if they thought leaving the EU would be a good idea. No details about how it would work in practice, just do you want to leave. So whenever I see people demanding that the result of the referendum be respected, I find myself asking what does that look like? Does it mean leaving with or without a deal? Does it mean being in or out of the customs union? Etc, etc, etc! Of course, you’re almost certain to get different answers to those questions from people who voted to leave. I have seen people argue that the only acceptable way to respect the referendum result is to leave with no deal, while others think it fine to still have close ties to the EU, but just want to leave its institutions.
Another example of it being virtually impossible to work out what respecting the referendum result looks like is Northern Ireland. Many Unionists liked the idea of Brexit and voted for it; but most, had they been told that what Brexit would actually mean is trade barriers between them and the rest of the UK, would have run a mile from it. But they weren’t told that, because in 2016 nobody actually could say what Brexit would look like.
Lee Moore, I take your point. The referendum was a binary choice. But it had one clear choice (no change) versus one muddy one (unspecified change). What if you found out that one side of the coin was “remain” and the other “To be determined”?
To your point about not accepting an election outcome, a referendum isn’t analogous. It is a different mechanism. But if it were analogous you would have to admit the “first” referendum was 3 years ago, and there’s nothing to stop a “third” referendum in future.
Late Riser : What if you found out that one side of the coin was “remain” and the other “To be determined”?
Sure, the Leave option was not defined precisely. But the ambiguity was not infinite. It clearly and definitely excluded one possibility – the possibility of Remaining. And whaddya know ? Three and a bit years on, the UK is still Remaining.
Moreover Remain was not defined precisely either. The EU has changed enormously since the UK joined 40 plus years ago. The extent of EU legal control over the member states is far more pervasive, and there is every likelihood (and intention) to continue this process. Remain is not a fixed, defined, destination any more than Leave. But each option clearly defined forbidden destinations – no destination that had the UK leaving the EU was consistent with a Remain win, and no destination that had the UK staying in the EU was consistent with a Leave win.
Let me analogise. Suppose Ruritania has the death penalty, and there’s a referendum to abolish it, which the abolitionists win 52-48. But the referendum didn’t ask what punishment there should be for murder instead of the death penalty. But the Ruritanian Parliament is full of tough punishment folk, mostly keen hangers, but they did promise to implement the referendum. Some MPs want life without parole. Some want hard labour. Some really hard nuts want transportation to Australia. There’s no Parliamentary majority for any particular replacement punishment. So Ruritania is still hanging people. Where does the problem lie ?
To your point about not accepting an election outcome, a referendum isn’t analogous. It is a different mechanism.
Which was my point. They’re different animals. So there’s nothing remotely disingenuous about saying a one off referendum decision should – if announced in advance to be final – be final; while saying that fresh elections are perfectly reasonable and normal, because elections are are part of a series. But referendums and elections are similar in that they reflect the popular will. The question is, as a matter of convention, does Parliament accept the result of a referendum ? We now have the answer – no. So there’s no point having any more referendums, on this or any other subject.
If the COnservatives win the next election (either outright or in coalition with the Brexit Party) the second order of business after Brexit should surely be the repealing of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
New York City is voting on a raft of city charter amendments on November 5, the first of which is the introduction of preferential voting.
https://ballotpedia.org/November_5,_2019_ballot_measures_in_New_York
I think it has. And it has spent 3 years attempting to implement it. And failed. It clearly isn’t easy. Perhaps it isn’t possible. How long do you keep trying an approach before trying something else? The “will of the people” was ambiguous. Why not clear it up? Either another Brexit election or a better Brexit referendum might help. That’s why the argument against a referendum appears disingenuous to me.
Boris Johnson is likely to try again today for an election, this time through legislation. He would only need majority support for this, not two thirds. However, as I suggested should happen, other parties want to make sure that there’s no possibility of Boris Johnson pushing through his Brexit deal before Parliament is dissolved for the election. This is creating argument about the election date. Apparently Boris Johnson will try again for December 12, but the SNP and Liberal Democrats are pushing for December the 9th. The reason for the different dates seems to be because if Parliament agrees to a December 9th election, it will dissolve quickly, allowing Boris Johnson no time to get his deal through, but there is concern that if Parliament agrees to December 12, he may try and push his deal through. I should ad, the Government is promising that if Parliament agrees to a General Election, it will not try to get the Brexit deal through before dissolving Parliament.
caf @ #20 Tuesday, October 29th, 2019 – 3:51 pm
This interesting given New York’s use of fusion voting has led to significant minor parties (Working Familes for the Left and Conservatives for the right) with significant organisational structures.
OPV could liberate these parties to run their own candidates and potentially make NYC a multi-party system like Australia.
Matt31 : However, as I suggested should happen, other parties want to make sure that there’s no possibility of Boris Johnson pushing through his Brexit deal before Parliament is dissolved for the election.
And as I mentioned, this is a fantasy. Boris (a) can’t push his Brexit deal through the HoC without attracting all sorts of poison pill amendments (which will pass) and (b) can’t push it through the HoL anyway. The Lib Dems and the SNP are just taking the opportunity to look as macho as they can, to dodge the wuss label that Boris is trying to pin on Corbyn.
Which btw is a mistake IMHO. If the main argument against Corbyn is that he is a lunatic, cornering him into dodging an election he’s very likely to lose is not the way to prove it.
There is no chance this deal will pass before or after 9 December, and no chance of an early election.
Late Riser : I think it has. And it has spent 3 years attempting to implement it. And failed. It clearly isn’t easy. Perhaps it isn’t possible. How long do you keep trying an approach before trying something else?
No, it’s spent three years pretending to attempt to implement it. The procedure is very simple and neatly laid out. You try to reach a mutually acceptable deal with the EU, and if you can’t manage a deal that both the EU and Parliament are happy with in two years, you just leave anyway.
It’s important to note that the Conservatives promised in their election manifesto in 2017 to just leave anyway if they failed to reach an acceptable deal. The only reason why Parliament has been able to prevent the UK leaving without a deal on 29 March, and now again on 31 October, is that about 30 MPs elected on that manifesto have welshed on their election promise.
The vision you need to keep in your head is a large All Black lock sloooowly getting back onside at a ruck, accidentally blocking the pass from the opposing half back. He is not trying to get back onside, and no it is not difficult to get back onside. He is there because he wants to be there.
We disagree there. Perhaps it is time for someone else to have a go?
Then why bother with a parliament at all?
But to get back to my point, if an election is OK, why not a referendum?
But to get back to my point, if an election is OK, why not a referendum?
I thought I had explained that already – at tedious length.
1. Because the result of the last election has been implemented. Having another one now will not treat the last election as if it had never happened. But the result of the referendum has not been implemented. It has been ignored. The side that lost has got what it wants – the UK continues to Remain. The side that won has got nothing.
2. And since the result has been ignored, we now know that referendums are pointless – just opinion polls. The only thing that matters is elections – because elections deliver the power to govern.
3. Thus a new election would be both fair (because the last one has been implemented) and purposeful (because it could deliver the legal power to make progress.) A new referendum would be both unfair (because the last one has not been implemented – the losing side has got its way) and purposeless (since referendums do not produce the legal power to make progress.)
“Does this mean the general trend to the right globally can or will be halted?”…
Too early to say yet, but recent events are swinging in the correct centre-left direction around the world. Now we are all waiting for the coming general election in the UK…. and then the presidential election in the USA. If Corbyn becomes UK PM and (hopefully) Warren POTUS, then it’s going to be a flood in the Social Democratic direction…. that will eventually sweep away the Australian Coalition too, in due course.
Very interesting times ahead….
Late Riser: An election now will be on the 650 seat boundaries, unchanged since the 2017 general election. It is true that the boundary commissions have put forward proposals for a 600 seat House of Commons. Those proposals would only come into force if they are approved by an Order in Council , which Parliament would have to vote for. Neither the May ministry nor the Johnson one have put forward a draft Order in Council and this will not now be done before the general election in December.
Whilst I was typing this post, it was announced that the Labour Party had decided to support the general election bill, so it is almost certain to be approved.
“A new referendum would be both unfair”….
I agree on giving a priority to a general election now. But a Labour win means a second referendum, which is fair, as it will be the fulfillment of Corbyn’s promise to return the issue of the UK membership of the EU to the People. Everything suggests that Remain would win such referendum…. and that will finally end this sad chapter in British political history.
Lee Moore @ #26 Tuesday, October 29th, 2019 – 8:51 pm
Sorry, but I disagree with that point. Britain has spent three years not ignoring it, to the point that almost everyone wants it to end. Britain just couldn’t figure out how to do it. But you may be right about British referendums being mere opinion polls.
As the referendum was not auto-enacting, as Article 50 required separate legislation to get triggered, is was indeed more of an opinion poll or what in Australia we call a plebiscite. Article 50 being triggered was a partial implementation of the referendum.
The British constitutional system of absolute parliamentary sovereignty and an unwritten constitution, where the only thing Parliament cannot do is bind a future parliament, is not set up for binding referenda like jurisdictions with written constitutions with referenda requirements (Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, etc.) are.
Referenda are also not permanent, even in Australia. Many times previously defeated referenda have had the same or similar proposals put back to the voters. Switzerland`s voters voted approximately 2:1 against giving women the vote in 1959 and then 2:1 for giving them the vote in 1971. So going back to the UK (and Gibraltar voters) again is not unreasonable. Leaving and then holding a return to the EU referendum, which may well be what happens if the UK leaves the EU messily, means that returning to the EU would involve fewer exemptions to EU requirements and the most controversial of these include the Euro and the Schengen Agreement (for borderless travel).
I also note that if the 2016 vote was a referendum in the style of constitutional referenda in Australia and Switzerland (something the Cameron Government ignored calls for when designing the referendum), it would have lost despite the majority because the of 5 jurisdictions (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar) that comprise the UK`s membership of the EU, 3 of them (Gibraltar, Scotland and Northern Ireland) voted majority Remain. Australia voted 62% in favour of simultaneous elections for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament in a referendum, yet the referendum was defeated because 3 states (Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland) voted against it.
Lee Moore
“ The Lib Dems and the SNP are just taking the opportunity to look as macho as they can, to dodge the wuss label that Boris is trying to pin on Corbyn.”
—————-
What a bit of nonsense.
Polls are showing that the SNP could take almost all unionist party seats in Scotland and the LibDems may pick up a number of seats in England.
What’s “macho” got to do with it?
Late Riser
“ Sorry, but I disagree with that point. Britain has spent three years not ignoring it, to the point that almost everyone wants it to end.”
—————
But the Parliamentarians have spent three years determined NOT to implement the results of the referendum for England.
Tom : Many times previously defeated referenda have had the same or similar proposals put back to the voters. Switzerland`s voters voted approximately 2:1 against giving women the vote in 1959 and then 2:1 for giving them the vote in 1971.
As you say, nothing wrong with that at all. But the winning side in the 1959 Swiss referendum got what they voted for. And then the winning side in the 1971 Swiss referendum got what they voted for.
The difference with the 2016 UK referendum is that the losing side has got what they voted for and the winning side has got what it voted against. The principle of the losing side in a referendum getting another go later is fine – so long as the result of the previous referendum has been implemented first. Otherwise it’s just a mulligan for the establishment side.
Article 50 being triggered was a partial implementation of the referendum.
No, it was a necessary precondition to implementation. But as we have seen, it can be put on hold indefinitely. The UK remains in the EU.
swamprat : By “macho” I mean that they are attempting to show that they are not frightened of an election. I agree that the SNP are likely to gain seats if there were to be an election. But that would not necessarily make them more powerful as I mentioned earlier.
I see from the news that Labour is apparently now backing an election. I’m surprised and still have my doubts as to whether one will actually happen. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Lee Moore
“ I agree that the SNP are likely to gain seats if there were to be an election. But that would not necessarily make them more powerful as I mentioned earlier.”
———
It is true if the Tories get an overall majority an expanded SNP contingent would have less power.
I think the SNP should make support for an election contingent on the Tories giving a section 30 order for anew Indyref. They have not seem to have required that.
Regardless, a new election will allow the SNP to campaign explicitly on independence from the UK and remaining in the EU. A majority vote for independence supporting parties in Scotland will be an important democratic support for the final push.
Watch this space?
https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1189156461991075843
Angus B MacNeil MP @AngusMacNeilSNP
So election in December is NOT done & dusted.
All hinges on votes for EU nationals and 16 to 17 year olds…
If that amendment passes Gov is likely to pull the Bill.
If it doesn’t pass then Lab and ALL opposition parties expected to remove support
Upshot Boris loses either way
11:26 PM · Oct 29, 2019
swamprat : A majority vote for independence supporting parties in Scotland will be an important democratic support for the final push.
1. So you’re not expecting the UK Parliament to ignore the referendum 🙂 ?
2. How do you plan to handle the question of Deal / No Deal in the new Indyref ?
3. Nothing – well almost nothing – would delight me more than Scottish independence, but IMHO, Scots are unlikely to go for it. But here’s hoping.
Despite the polls, the Tories are not guaranteed a majority. 🙂
No, the Tories are certainly not guaranteed a majority, but as Leroy’s post suggests, I think this talk of an election is just a spoof. The opposition parties will put poison pills in the election Bill to make sure there’s no actual election. It’s a game of charades.
Lee Moore
I do not understand your questions.
I have thought that the SNP should have supported the right of England to be “free” from the EU, in return for their (brexit and Tory parties) support for Scotland to be able to be “free” from the precious Union and stay in the EU.
The SNP leadership has instead campaigned tirelessly against Brexit for the UK as a whole.
Lee Moore
“ I think this talk of an election is just a spoof.”
———
Maybe. We will see.
swamprat : I do not understand your questions
I am drawing a parallel.
1. The Remainers have declined to implement the 2016 EU referendum. Why do you expect the Unionists to implement a successful Indyref for Scotland ? As I have droned on interminably above, if we have learned anything from the Brexit referendum it is that the UK Parliament, not to mention the media, does not regard obeying the results of referendums as noteworthy, never mind a democratic duty.
2. The Remainers (including the SNP) have insisted that No Deal must be off the table. Brexit can only be done on the basis of an agreement with the EU. The consequence, obviously, is that the EU knows that the UK must take whatever the EU chooses to offer, or else stay in. Will the Scots be willing to take whatever terms the English choose to offer ?
Of course in practice, the residual UK would be far more reasonable and accommodating with Scotland than the EU has been with the UK. The rather grumpy and Imperial UK of 1921 did not treat Ireland particularly well, but even so it sought far less control over an independemt Ireland than the EU has insisted on with the UK.
1. Its not asking the Westminster mob to implement an Indyref, its just that they say Westminster must issue a section 30 certificate to “allow” a referendum to go ahead. (There are legal arguments that Westminster can’t legally stop it.. but to curtail Spain, the SNP wants everything “legal”.
2. “ Of course in practice, the residual UK would be far more reasonable and accommodating with Scotland than the EU has been with the UK.”. Wow where to start. You do realise that last year the Westminster Parliament stripped many of the limited powers from Holyrood and reserved them for the Tory Government. This was done where the Speaker allowed 15 mins debate occupied by one English MP and no Scottish MP was allowed to speak. The Labour Party abstained so it was passed.
More recently, Westminster has reserved all powers over Scottish Waters to the UK Government.
Lee More: Sorry, I was a bit short earlier. I had to be elsewhere for a bit. I am thinking about what you’re saying. And I think I can see another side of the argument. I’m just not convinced. I think it comes down to what you see as delivering on the referendum (a Brexit at any cost) versus what I see as delivering (trying but failing for a Brexit the majority will accept). If anything you convinced me that a British style referendum is just an opinion poll, in practice as well as intent. I’m still deciding if that makes a referendum irrelevant to be honoured as it makes it irrelevant to hold. But anyway. It’s late. Thanks for your ideas. 🙂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHfLrfAW4AAV-ep?format=jpg&name=900×900
Gary J. Thanks. 650 seats it is.
“And since the result has been ignored.”
***
What has actually been ignored is the fact that a majority in both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. As someone else pointed out, the UK parliament has wasted years on trying to figure out how to unscramble the egg.
On the forthcoming GE in the UK, Professor Sir John Curtice, a leading election analyst said:
“ I think the safest prediction is that we will have a record number of non-Conservative and non-Labour MPs in this parliament.
“The SNP look set to win the vast majority of seats in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats given their position in the polls should do extremely well. We expect Caroline Lucas and the Green Party to hang on to her seat.
“We could have more than 100 MPs that do not belong to either of the other two parties.
“That matters for two reasons. The first is that it makes it difficult for either Conservative or Labour to win an overall majority if you’re taking the fact that 100 of the seats are already spoken for.
“Secondly, it matters because this is an asymmetric election. It’s an election that Boris Johnson has to win. If he does not get a majority or something very close to it, he will not be able to stay in government because the Conservatives do not have any friends elsewhere.
“The Labour Party, by contrast, at least has the possibility of doing a deal with the SNP, a deal with the Liberal Democrats, getting support of the Greens and maybe even the DUP not standing in their way.
“Bear in mind, this is not an election that Labour have to win to stop Brexit, but it is an election that they and the other opposition parties simply need to deny the Conservatives a majority.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/professor-john-curtice-makes-surprising-prediction/
A December election in Scotland is no such a fun thing.
In Inverness on the 12th December the sun rises at 8.49 am and sets at 3.31 pm.
Combine that with the likelihood of dreich weather and pounding the streets will not be pleasant. 🙂
The reactionaries have a little game going.
When they like a referendum result the behaviour of the parliament in ‘thwarting’ the referendum is inherently anti-democratic.
When the Parliament votes for something they like then that IS democratic.