Democracy will not be crushed

The news from Westminster today has been horrific. Knowing the area well, and having been in New Palace Yard only last week, it's been shocking to see what's happened.

The police do an incredible job, risking their lives to protect the public. Sadly an officer has today lost their life protecting others. I salute their bravery.

An attack on Parliament is not merely an attack on a building or the people in it. It is an attack on democracy. But democracy will not be crushed.

Parliament has been attacked before and thrived. It will do so again. Not even the destruction of the Commons chamber could destroy it. Nor will this.

When you're on the losing end of the vote

Here's an extract from a piece I recently wrote over on the Mars Hill blog, explaining why so many Brexiteers have the attitude they do to the post referendum legislation debate, namely because of how things went when many were on the losing end of votes:

In many ways, it feels as though the country has turned full circle from the late 1990s. Back then it was pretty miserable to be a right-winger, losing elections heavily, facing an almost impossible route back to power, losing referendums, being told from all sides that the great debates were permanently settled and you had lost and so forth. There was much talk of "this election will be the last fought on ideology". Eurosceptics were bluntly told that their opinion was invalid because so many had voted for pro-European parties. There was a real sense of having it crushed down that not just a battle but a war had been won and a new permanent settlement was here to stay.

Sound familiar?

However, what is definitely different is the media reaction and coverage of those who lost at the ballot box. It was never mentioned then that in 1997 Tony Blair and New Labour swept to power with the backing of about just 30% of the total electorate. Instead New Labour swept all before it. The Welsh devolution referendum passed by 50.3% on a 50.22% turnout. But very few talked about the "49.8%" or the "75%" or whatever the percentage of the total population of Wales was. The media did not go hunting for regretful Yes/Yr voters. The referendum had to be followed up by primary legislation but few argued that it was only "advisory" and that Parliament should not enact it. Those who did were dismissed as anti-democrats who were disrespectful of the will of the people. There was no talk of further referendums on the final settlement or when question marks were raised about what had influenced voters.

(Ironically the one referendum whose implementation did get challenged a lot was the only one that did have the backing of over 50% of the total electorate, namely the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.)

You can see from this why so many Eurosceptics are both gung ho and apprehensive about the current situation. Having been on the other end of the stick, they know all too well the importance of getting the great democratic mandate enacted as quickly as they can. They have little sympathy for those who showed them none. But they also don't feel as confident in their position as New Labour did. And they fear that victory will be snatched from their hands. They've lost time and again on European treaties. They've seen politicians promise referendums only to not deliver them, sometimes taking refuge in how proposals have been repackaged. They are aware of how pro Europeanism has consistently been much stronger in Parliament than in the country. And they see a significant chunk of political opinion that claims to want to have a say in shaping Brexit when it actually wants to stop Brexit altogether. Few believe that Gina Miller brought her court case merely because she wanted to see a debate in Parliament but because she and her supporters were trying any method they could to derail Brexit altogether.

(The full piece is at "Arise Lord Brexit".)

How MPs should vote on the Article 50 Bill

Quite simply in favour.

There are two main lines of argument advanced for them to vote against.

The first only applies to some, with the argument being made that they should vote against because a majority of voters voted Remain in their constituencies.

Leaving aside the fact that the results were not counted by constituency and the estimates are not unanimous, this raises the potential problem that we could have had a majority of constituencies voting one way and a majority of the voters voting the other. The precedent that would be set would be for MPs to ignore a national vote and substitute the constituency results. Such a referendum outcome could never be sustainable and is undesirable. MPs have multiple duties, including to vote for what is in the best interests of the country as a whole. By calling a UK wide referendum they gave the question to the UK as a whole and should not rewrite the rules afterwards.

The same applies to the argument being thrown about that MPs should replace the electorate's decision with their own judgement. This appeal to parliamentary democracy is fundamentally weakened by the very use of a referendum which has meant that MPs have already passed the decision to the people. And it wasn't an "advisory" affair but a decisive vote. Prior to the results everyone involved, MPs, voters, the EU etc..., knew that a Leave victory would mean the UK leaving the EU.

To deny the referendum outcome would be a negation of democracy. At a time when there is a crisis of participation it is essential that democracy is seen to work, especially with the highest turnout vote of the 21st century.

So where's the US democracy?

I have a confession to make about US politics. From what I've read and seen from Al Franken I find him funny. Compared to the po faces, ranters and zealots that dominate the US right in the media, Franken is a breath of fresh air. Just look at the way he wiped the floor with Ann Coulter:



But Franken's politics are a very different matter. Electing him to the US Senate would be like electing Ian Hislop to the British House of Commons. But the people of Minnesota (who after all once elected an ex-wrestler as governor!) have decided differently and the result is all but formally declared. (Minnesota Public Radio: Franken increases lead over Coleman to 225 votes)

Now call me old fashioned but I was always led to believe that in a democracy the representatives are chosen by the people. However it seems that some in the US Senate have different ideas, wanting the courts to choose the winner and threatening to invoke obscure rules to block Franken from taking his seat as the duly elected Senator. There is something seriously wrong with democracy as practised in the United States if elections are being determined not by the voters but by the courts and losers can't accept they've lost but keep running to the courts to change the rules as they go.

As a side note, it seems that the determination of the Democrat Senate leader to seat Franken is generating criticism because of the controversies surrounding the Illinois seat vacated by Obama, with people declaring that seating Franken, who is white, and not the appointee, who is black, by an arrested sleaze consumed governor, will be a sign of racism. But it is clear the two situations aren't remotely the same. Those throwing around accusations of racism are the ones playing the race card themselves. Such accusations merely belittle racism and encourage people to be dismissive when it really happens.

On the anniversary of Zimbabwean independence

Today twenty-eight years ago Zimbabwe became independent. The people of Zimbabwe gained the opportunity to democratically determine their own future.

Apparently. Has anyone seen any evidence of this lately?

In his speech to mark the day Robert Mugabe said that Zimbabweans "established democracy, based on one person, one vote". (BBC News: Mugabe speech marks independence) It's clear who he wants that one person to be!

Liberals continue ditching democracy

As well as the party's youth wing changing the name and ditching "Democrats" (see Young Lib Dems to become a lie?), the party is retreating from democracy in other areas. Nick Clegg has announced that his party will vote against letting the people of this country have their say on whether or not political power should be transferred.

Many often argue against referendums, making the case that we elect Parliament to make decisions for us. And this is true. But that is a very different thing from whether or not Parliament should have the right to give powers away; powers that will be very hard to retrieve. There is an unwritten agreement between Parliament and the people, and any changes to that agreement should be assented to by both.

Nick Clegg seems scared of a referendum - does he think he wouldn't win one? Doesn't he have the self-confidence to put the case for the treaty to the people? If so then he truly is a yellow politician. Instead he's calling for a basic referendum on whether or not we should be in the European Union at all - a worthy thing in itself but since such a vote is currently unlikely he is merely using it to appear to support democracy whilst in actual fact undermining it.

And at the last general election all three parties promised a referendum on the Constitution. That the treaty is very similar is a conclusion reached by even the committees of the House of Commons, so the nomenclature is no excuse for backing away from one. As Austin Mitchell said in the Commons:

If it looks like a constitution, if it smells like a constitution, if it reads like a constitution, so far as I'm concerned it's a constitution.
(Source: BBC News: In quotes: EU treaty debate

One of the reasons for the great alienation from the European Union in this country is the way that politicians have sought to keep the debate amongst themselves, telling the people that it was all about free trade as an ends in itself and then claiming the project was just about "modernisation" and "expansion", rather than being open about the goal of European unity. A referendum would give pro Europeans the opportunity to put their case to the people and seek to re-engage the public on this issue. Instead politicians like Nick Clegg (a former Member of the European Parliament) choose instead to perpetuate and extend the democratic deficit.

For Conservative Democracy

Those who read ConservativeHome regularly may have seen recent discussions and campaigns about the way a number of important (and, it must be admitted, several not so important) matters are handled in the party, culminating in the row over the way candidates for the European Parliament are to be selected.

ConservativeHome has launched a campaign "to find candidates for next year's Board elections that will always vote to protect members' voting rights." (ConservativeHome's ToryDiary: It's time for a new Party Board) But I think it will not be enough to merely promote and hopefully elect the right people to the board this time. As I have already commented on that thread, I think things must go much further.

The entire system by which the Conservative Party is structured is badly anti-democratic. Only some of the Board is elected. Those that are are elected by members of the National Convention. The Convention in turn is a mixture of ex officio members and various appointees (the way the Conservative Future places are allocated has long been a mess). None of this gives the ordinary party member a direct say in the way the party is run.

Some of this may seem like naval gazing. But a party that is responsive to its members' needs will generate better morale, make better decisions and win more.

So let's take a leaf out of the French Union pour un Mouvement Populaire's book and look to direct internet based elections. Let's have both the Board and Convention directly elected. Let's make this a proper Party structure for the twenty-first century.