Tory policy in the 1970 election manifesto was to negotiate entry to the EEC and, if it considered the entry terms to be in the interests of Britain, to seek parliamentayr approval to join. They won the election on that manifesto. The subsequently sought and obtained Parliamentary approval to join. Then they joined.
So, the hurdle set in 1970 was (a) win an election on a manifesto to join, subject to parliamentary approval, and then (b) seek parliamentary approval.
This is a higher hurdle than simply winning a referendum, since it requires approval by the voters of the principle of joining, plus approval by parliament of actually joining, when the terms and other details are known.
The idea of the referendum superseding Parliament, so that the view of Parliament become irrelevant and Parliament has no part in approving the decision, is, I’m pretty sure, a constitutional novelty in the UK, and I seriously doubt that it is a good one.
Nevertheless, it’s one to which I think the major parties have committed, and on this occasion I think they have no choice but to follow through. The lesson for future occasions is perhaps (a) don’t promote a referendum seeking approval for a course of action unless it’s a course of action which government and parliament already favour, and (b) don’t promote a referendum asking the public to decide on a question when important details remain unknown but, if you must do that, make it clear that the referendum is purely advisory and Parliament will have the final say when the details are known.
The promise to hold a referendum on the EU was part of the Tories’ manifesto in 2015. So they won parliamentary authority to hold a referendum from the electorate and then held one. And this was also known for the 2014 Scottish referendum.
Yes, I agree. They unquestionably had a mandate to hold the referendum. And, if I’m not mistaken, their manifesto included a commitment to “respect the outcome”. Now, you can split finnicky hairs about whether that’s the same as a commitment to implement the outcome, but to my simple mind it is. So I think the Conservatives now have a mandate which not only allows but positively requires them to take Britain out of the EU - on the least awful terms they can negotiate, undoubtedly, but staying in, or using this referendum vote as brinksmanship to try and negotiate better terms for staying in, is not really on.
My point is that this was a very stupid and irresponsible thing to do. But it’s done.
The only way out of this for the Conservatives is to go to the country on a manifesto of not implementing the outcome. Were they to win, they would then have a mandate not to implement the referendum. I don’t think they have any appetite to seek that mandate, if they did seek it in the near term, I don’t think they’d get it.
Conservative grandee and former leadership contender Lord Heseltine has launched a scathing attack on Boris Johnson:
“I think there will be a profound sense of dismay and frankly contempt. He’s ripped the party apart. He’s created the greatest constitutional crisis of modern times.
“He’s knocked billions off the value of the nation’s savings. He’s like a general that led his army to the sound of guns and at the sight of the battlefield, abandoned the field - to the claims of his adjutant who said he wasn’t up to the job in the first place.
“I have never seen so contemptible and irresponsible a situation”.
Asked whether Boris feels ashamed? “I have no idea. I know he should be”.
Although Heseltine would have no doubt been delighted to have done so, Geoffrey Howe is widely credited as being the catalyst for Thatcher’s resignation.
The upshot is that the PM may not have the constitutional authority to invoke Article 50 without an Act of Parliament. The article brings up a series of scenarios that could prevent Leave:
PM defers to Parliament initially, and they vote to Remain (or against Leave, same difference). According to the article, a majority of MP’s favor Remain.
PM invokes Article 50, it’s challenged in court, he loses, and Parliament votes to Remain.
Scotland ‘blocks’ Leave by refusing to agree to a UK Parliamentary Act. This assumes that the PM can’t invoke Article 50 unilaterally, and Parliament passes an Act. (Not a particularly likely event, but…)
The EU’s position will very strongly be that they are not going to be party, or to be seen to be party, or to be possibly remotely seen to be party, to breaking up the UK or to facilitating or encouraging the breakup of the UK.
So, Scots Nats who are thinking in terms of Scotland seceding from the UK so as to remain in the EU need to deal with the UK first. Once it’s established* that there’s going to be an independent Scotland, the EU will fall on them with glad cries. Until the, zip.
And, by “established”, I don’t mean that the Scots have expressed a desire for independence. I mean that the UK has officially and openly accepted that Scotland is going to be independent.
Oddly enough, in British political culture it can be enough, and more than enough.
The UK is blessed or burdened (depending on your point of view) with the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. When it comes to political mandates, this has two corollaries that we need to note here:
First, a political mandate secured in a general election trumps a political mandate secured in any other way.
Secondly, in a general election a plurality of votes (less than a majority of votes, but more votes than anyone else has got) does confer a mandate, provided it is spread in such a way as to secure a majority of seats (which is not difficult, under the charmingly retro British electoral system).
If a 50%+ vote is required for a mandate, then I think no single party has secured a mandate to govern the UK since the Liberals in 1880.
Yeah, but obviously no one has manged to tell the Nats that.
Sturgeon really messed up with her “Second Indy Ref” claim did’nt she. She should have waited and seen which way the political winds were going before committing herself.
If for no other reason than the need to avoid encouraging other independence-minded regions (hello Catalonia) from trying to secede. That way lies instability as much as losing members does.
Eh, she couldn’t really have said anything else. It’s the whole SNP raison d’etre. She’d have taken flak from her party if she hadn’t.
I’m half-surprised Martin McGuinness jumped on that bandwagon so quickly though. He always struck me as more of a “long game” kind of guy.
I think neither of them had any illusions about their respective countries getting out immediately, or without a lot of work. They just had to immediately get it on the record that Brexit had changed the terms of the whole deal.
She’s posturing. From her point of view, now is not a terribly good time for a second referendum, but she doesn’t want to be the one to say that there’ll be no second referendum. Partly because that would be embarrassing for any Scots Nat First Minister, and partly (in fairness to her) because there is probably some political leverage for Scotland that can be had by making noise about this, and she’s not going to abandon that.
