Politicians are great ones for saying that they listen to the people, that they are respecting the will of the people. Yet when the people march on parliament they do nothing. This Saturday – October 20th some 600,000 odd people marched on parliament to request a second vote on Brexit – that represents 1% of the population. How many does it need before the government actually reacts?
In addition to the march in London, more than a thousand people protested in Belfast at the City Hall. Mr Pearse Smith, from the group Our Future, Our Choice Northern Ireland, said that the rally in Belfast was a protest against “the current Brexit negotiations”. He told BBC News NI that protesters had three main demands, the principal one being a vote whereby any Brexit withdrawal deal would be put to a referendum. This idea of a second referendum has been roundly denounced by many including Theresa May the Prime Minister who said in September that “I want to be absolutely clear, this government will never accept a second referendum. The British people voted to leave the European Union and we will be leaving on March 29, 2019.”
In the example of Northern Ireland this issue is of particular importance. Northern Ireland voted with a majority of 56% in favour of remaining in the EU for one thing, but for another, it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland – one of the 27 member states of the EU. This border has long been an issue of contention for many, but was reduced in significance with the signing of the Belfast Agreement (otherwise known as the Good Friday Agreement) in 1998.
Under the Belfast Agreement the following draft clauses were included for incorporation into British Legislation:
- (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.”
Taken at face value, these clauses would seem to allow for the changing of public opinion… yet in the 20 years since the Belfast Agreement was signed there has never been a single vote on this issue. Not one.
What then should be the timing of such a poll? The political leaders of Sinn Féin publicly stated in 2016 that they felt that such a poll should be held if Britain voted to leave the EU in the referendum; no poll was held. Michelle O’Neill also called for a referendum in May of this year on the reunification of Ireland to be held; no poll was held. This was then followed by a further request from Mary Lou McDonald; no poll was held.
Given the lack of such a poll, one can only wonder at the point of a reunification clause in the first place. The idea that a change in public opinion should be a force for change is a good one; one could even argue that it is in fact a foundation of government – especially in a democracy. However, if the timing of such a poll or vote is left in the hands of those in power, then it is tantamount to being useless.
20 years have passed since the Belfast Agreement was signed – enough time for a child to be born and to go through education and to reach voting age, and in all that time no move has been made to honour the reunification terms of the Belfast Agreement.
If we are going to include the public (or public opinion) as criteria for the decisions of government then surely we should set the rules around when those criteria should be followed. There is little point (it seems to me) in indicating the need for the inclusion of public opinion on a decision making process if ultimately a single person (in this case the Prime Minister) is responsible for deciding when that public interaction should be sought.
So then, how many does it take for anyone to listen?
The current Prime Minster has ruled out a second referendum – and it would seem, to the point that she is entirely unconcerned by public opinion. On Saturday more than 600,000 people marched on parliament to express their desire for a chance to vote on the final deal for Britain. According to the Prime Minister however it wouldn’t matter if 6 million people marched on Parliament – because this government will “never accept a second referendum”. The government may not accept a second referendum, but it certainly accepts direction from other areas. The government is being held to ransom by a combination of the Democratic Union Party MPs (10) and the anti-Europe MPs which form part of the (laughably named) European Research Group (varying membership – approx. 50).
If you are going to allow the public to express their opinion – and for this to be accounted for in the decision making process; then surely you have to have agreed points at which that opinion can be expressed, rather than leaving that choice down to a single person?
In the current circumstance, the Prime Minister can change her mind, the MPs can change their minds – but the public cannot!
That doesn’t seem to be very democratic to me.
A very interesting overview of the current situation.
I was at the London March on Saturday to express my support for a so-called ‘peoples vote’. The supporters I met we’re from all walks of life, many were from overseas or had spent a significant period of their working lives in Europe.
I talked to a young (47!) man and his family, he had spent many years working on the Galileo European Space Program in Italy but had now returned to the UK. However he wanted to ensure that his children could enjoy similar future benefits of EU experience for their work, study and job opportunities. As he pointed out, he himself had known such a lifestyle and Brexit would make his children’s world a smaller and more restrictive place.
I understood his views perfectly, and will continue to press for a vote. I hope many more will do the same.
The figures for Saturday’s march continue to rise now it is 750000, having been at the two previous protests it was obvious from the outset on Saturday that the numbers would be massive. Pundits are making the comparison with the 2003 Iraq War protest when 1million protested, and it was ignored. The reason the government was able to ignore it was that they had a majority of 150, May has no majority, that is a significant difference. Regardless of what May says, if parliament as the peoples representatives cannot agree, then the people should vote on any deal that is presented with the option to remain.
On the NI issue the reason there has been no vote is because Sinn Fein are not the majority party in the assembly, if over time they achieve a majority (always the DUPs biggest nightmare) then I am sure they will call for a vote on the issue.
Finally, remember nothing of significance has ever been achieved without people’s protest.
O
Re NI – the DUP is not the majority in NI now. They have 38 seats, and the other parties together have 40. The conditions you mention for the call for a vote have been met therefore… what more must be done?
My point is – this should not be left to the judgement of an individual – especially an individual open to political pressure. This should be decided and agreed by set, unambiguous and independent criteria.
No-deal Brexit: What France’s draft law means for Brits
The French government has published a draft bill on the contingency plans it intends to rush through to avoid problems for Brits living in France and chaos at the borders if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal. It also confirms that Brits living in France are bargaining chips in negotiations.
The French government is stepping up its preparations for Brexit and has released details of a draft legislation it plans to rush through in the event that Britain leaves the EU without a deal.
Much of the bill focuses on how British nationals living in France will be impacted by a no-deal and what the government in Paris will need to do to guarantee their status on this side of the Channel.
The country’s Europe minister Nathalie Loiseau said: “We must make sure that in the absence of a deal Britons living in France do not find themselves suddenly with irregular status.”
Here’s a closer look at what a no-deal would mean for Brits living in France and what the French government intends to do, via the passing of urgent decrees, to avoid issues after Brexit Day on March 29th.
The draft legislation, published on the Senate’s website, is confirmation, if Brits in France needed it, that they are bargaining chips in the whole Brexit negotiations process.
The bill depends on the ongoing negotiations between London and Brussels
While the bill presented by the Minister for Europe could be crucial, it acknowledges that the most important Brexit matter right now is the ongoing talks between the UK and the EU and their outcome.
At this moment “it’s not possible to anticipate” what that outcome will be, but the bill stresses that the negotiations between London and Brussels for an agreement take precedent over the French government’s contingency plans for a no-deal.
Guarantees depend on what Britain does
The French government states clearly on a number of occasions that all the guarantees for the rights of Britons in France mentioned in the bill depend on the UK adopting reciprocal measures first.
The UK government has already guaranteed the rights of EU citizens in the UK even if there’s no deal but nothing is written down in law. Given that British politics seems fairly unstable right now with the possibility of elections or leadership challenges to Theresa May looming large all those guarantees given by the British PM could soon stand for nothing.
Until the rights of French nationals are guaranteed in law in the UK then France could in theory scrap its own contingency plan to guarantee the rights of Britons here.
Brits could be given better treatment than other third country nationals (if the French are)
This should be good news for Brits living in France.
The text reads that decrees could be taken that provide measures which grant British citizens in France “more favourable treatment” than people from other third countries (in other words non-EU member states).
BUT that would only happen if the British also give French nationals in the UK the equivalent status.
Residency permits will be needed or you’ll be ‘irregular’
The draft bill states that: “In the event of withdrawal from the United Kingdom without an agreement, British nationals who enjoy the right of free movement and free establishment throughout the European Union, as well as members of their family, will become third country nationals and will therefore in principle be subject to common law, that is to say to the requirement to present a visa to enter French territory and to have a residency permit to justify staying here.”
France’s Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau has stated the government’s intention to pass a decree to guarantee Brits already in France can stay in the event of a no-deal.
“We must make sure that in the absence of a deal on March 30th, 2019, Britons living in France do not find themselves suddenly with irregular (immigration) status,” said Loiseau.
Britons in France have been encouraged by France’s Interior Ministry to apply their Carte de Séjour residency permit as soon as possible even if there is a deal and the draft bill states clearly that “in the case of an exit without agreement, the British wishing to enter France to stay for more than three months would be subject to this requirement.”
If Britain leaves without a deal then British nationals and their families who didn’t have the residency permits would have an ‘irregular’ status, the draft bill states.
If there is a deal Brits in France who have successfully applied for a Carte de Sejour will likely be able to swap it for whatever kind of residency permit that is brought in post-Brexit.
Work permits
The French government estimates some 52 percent of the 150 Brits living in France are employed so decrees would need to be taken to allow them to continue in their jobs.
That’s because the draft legislation states that “in the event of withdrawal without agreement, British nationals with employment contracts under French law with an employer in France may be required to obtain a permit equivalent to a work permit in France, as provided for in the regulations on the employment of foreigners in the Code of Employment.”
The text continues: “Without the possession of such a document, the employer could be held criminally liable for the employment of foreigners.”
Those in certain professions would be particularly affected
The text states that a no-deal Brexit could mean that those exercising certain professions such as doctors or pharmacists may have problems due to the law that states those exercising these professions must be from an EU member state, here France would need to pass a decree to allow them to continue.
British nationals working for French public service
A decree would need to be passed to allow any British nationals working as civil servants in France to continue their roles due to a law that states those employed in the French civil service must have French nationality or that of another EU member state.
There are an estimated 5,000 Britons working for the French state, many employed in education.
Health and benefits
Legislation would be needed to allow Brits to access benefits, says the draft legislation which estimates that 3,000 Brits claim basic job seekers allowance in France known as RSA.
“In the event of withdrawal from the United Kingdom without agreement…the coordination of social security systems will no longer apply.”
That means:
“The withdrawal will therefore have consequences for the opening and determination of the social rights of British nationals and their dependents, as well as for the determination of their eligibility for social minimum.”
The text says that legislative changes will be needed and may “also provide for the contribution of British nationals and their dependents to certain benefits, the assumption of which will no longer be the subject of financial compensation by British social schemes.”
The impact of a no-deal Brexit would be that the “the United Kingdom will no longer be obliged to compensate France for the health care expenses of British residents who receive a retirement pension paid in France by a British scheme.”
More measures will be taken
There’s probably more to come because the draft legislation states that the French government “is also empowered to take any other measure necessary to deal with the situation of British nationals residing in France.”
Thanks for this As, it’s been really helpful and much appreciated
Rupert, you can borrow my old Carte de Sejour if you like? Still have mine dated 29 July 1994 – although it also expired in 1994 too! 🙁
Little story from a democracy Far East : Taiwan.
In 2018, the government is holding a referendum regarding the legalisation of same sex mariage. The result is not bidding to any action. It is consultative. In other words: the people in office (those who have been elected and are fat payed to take decisions for the good of the society) is too afraid (for their own reelection) to take any decision. So a referendum is held to “feel the temperature” within the society. In other words, this referendum is a tool for elected representatives to weigh their personal risk for doing their job.
Another example… the Vote on Brexit: Cameron’s hidden agenda for calling a referendum was a political calculation: he wanted to strengthen his power. His failure? Not listening exactly. Would he have been freed from his blinder (lack of connections from all layers of the society, for one), he had realised how bad the move was.
I am not blaming (only) him. Look at any of his colleagues in other European countries & the US… this is shamefully the same situation.
Referendums, as exercised in the UK, France – or even Taiwan, are a joke, another hypocrite artefact of “democracy in apparence”.
Something that already exists … and obviously works… is the Swiss system: “Since 1891 citizens may also demand a change to the constitution via referendum by launching a popular initiative. It must be launched by a group of at least seven citizens and must then be backed by 100,000 signatures within 18 months to push it to a referendum.”
https://www.thelocal.ch/20180523/how-switzerlands-direct-democracy-system-works
To make it sustainable and transferable to bigger countries, there are many ideas to explore:
– The number of referendums could be limited to 4 per years. The subjects with the highest signatures being the winners.
– The numbers of required signatures can be raised based on the size of the population.
– The result of a vote could be canceled if more than 1% of people who signed the initiative didn’t participate to the referendum (to make sure that people who sign for a vote commit themselves).
Only… there should be a will to allow “people be sovereign in their own country”
Heh – Bienvenue GUillaume.
Interesting point at the end – I don’t think that there is a will to allow people to be sovereign in their own country. Such a level of democracy would reduce the power that any ‘leader’ could have, and why would they want that? I honestly no longer believe that most politcians have any desire to represent – merely lead.