All posts for the month October, 2019

In the interests of the EU should the EU council grant an extension to the UK?

Brexit looks to be currently at stalemate in the UK. As at the morning of Monday 21 October 2019, I have tried to lay out the perspective of the EU Council if it aims to follow, in spirit, Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union. That is, aiming at leaving aside any political biases that the EU or myself may have on the issue.

After the Government pulled a meaningful vote on the revised political declaration on Saturday they will try again for a meaningful vote today. Following the inability to get the deal passed, on Saturday evening Prime Minister Boris Johnson sent the letter requesting an extention of the Article 50, as required by the the Benn Act. It was a photocopy and unsigned. This can be found on the government website page Letters from the UK to the EU Council: 19 October 2019. Boris Johnson also sent a signed letter to Donald Tusk to be found on the government website page Prime Minister’s letter to President Donald Tusk: 19 October 2019.

The Formal Letter is as follows

Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This letter provides no reason for extending the Article 50(3) period. The Prime Minister’s letter provides context for at least withholding the decision on the extension. With a deal between the EU and the UK not actually put to a vote by the UK parliament, there is clearly no reason for granting of an extension. Indeed, granting an extension before that deal is decided would likely ensure that the deal is voted down. Refusal to grant an extension would see the EU effectively ejecting a member state with no deal, something that neither the EU, nor a majority in the UK parliament desire.

The EU council are bound by Article 50. I covered legal analysis of Article 50 by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland last month. Like the judicial ruling I quoted Article 50 in full. The legal analysis was

Certain aspects of Article 50 did not fall to be construed in either Miller or Wightman. Bearing in mind that the exercise is one of construing a measure of EU law, I consider that those aspects of Article 50 not addressed in either Miller or Wightman yield the following construction:

(i) First, there is no concept, meaning or definition of “negotiate” supporting the view that the clause beginning “… the Union shall negotiate … ” denotes a duty and exercise unilateral in nature. It takes two to tango. The concept of negotiation must surely be, depending on its context, something bilateral or multilateral in nature. This discrete element of Article 50(2) would be emptied of meaning and rendered nugatory if it is not to be construed thus.
(ii) There is no legal context known to this court which dictates that negotiations must culminate in a legally binding agreement between the negotiating parties. There is nothing in the text of Article 50 which displaces this proposition. Nor is there any identifiable basis or rationale for implying any different or contrary
construction.
(iii) Article 50(2) clearly establishes an imperative, namely a negotiated and concluded withdrawal agreement, without purporting to mandate that this occur.
(iv) Article 50(3) expressly contemplates the possibility that the negotiations required by Article 50(2) will not culminate in a withdrawal agreement.
(v) The plain aim of the two year period specified in Article 50(3) is the promotion of stability and certainty in the EU.
(vi) The provision made in Article 50(3) for consensual extension of the basic two year period is plainly designed to further the overarching imperative of a negotiated and concluded withdrawal agreement.

Note that this analysis was upon matters raised by those wanting the judicial review, so may not be comprehensive for the current purposes.

Point (i) clearly states that two parties must negotiate. In the current circumstances who negotiates with the EU Council? The Benn Act coerces the Prime Minister to act against his clearly stated will. So you have parliament saying one thing and the recognised Prime Minister saying another. By “recognised” I mean by, parliament, the Queen as Head of State, and the EU Council,  in its negotiations with the UK last week. Parliament has had opportunities to constitutionally remove the Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. They twice failed to vote for a general election at the start of September. Also the leader of the opposition has had numerous opportunities to table a vote of no confidence and then try to form a coalition government. In my view, Article 51 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) may have some relevance.

Clearly the Prime Minister is not concluding a Treaty under the letter he was coerced into sending, just requesting an extension or a negotiating perios . However, it would be highly embarrassing for the EU Council to assent to an extension in the full knowledge that it against the will of the person who they have recognised as the UK’s representative.

Point (ii) states that reaching a withdrawal agreement might not be possible, whilst point (iii) states that it is a clear imperative. It is this context that the EU Council ought to withhold any decision on extension until it is clear that the agreed deal will not pass. Doing so would undermine their own efforts to reach a deal.

Point (iv) refers to Article 50(3) as having an imperative, namely a negotiated withdrawal agreement. Point (vi) makes clear this is the overarching imperative of any extension. If it is clear that any deal will not pass then there is no justification for extending the Article 50 period beyond the 31 October Point (v) is the plain aim of two year period for leaving – and by implication any extensions – is for the promotion of stability and certainty in the EU . Clearly the current situation is causing considerable instabilities and uncertainties is both the UK and the EU as a whole. Perhaps another incentive not to extend is the term office of Presidents Juncker and Tusk end on 31 October. Personally they will not want to leave the issue of Brexit still unresolved.

If parliament rejects the current deal, why should the EU Council extend? The possible position of the EU is to express clear exasperation with the UK, and make clear an extension will be contingent on the UK being in a position to make clear decisions by a stipulated date. That would imply the UK holding a general election at the earliest opportunity that will result in a clear position on Brexit. That is to leave, with or without a deal, or to revoke Article 50. It would mean that the EU has to agree with Nigel Farage, and it could see the resignation of Boris Johnson who whose main aim is to see Britain leave at the end of the month “do or die”. Whether he resigns or not, the Conservatives would likely drop in the opinion polls, which might see another hung parliament. The Labour Party would need to campaign on a clear position, as if they win on current policies, they would not comply. The alternative of a second referendum with only two options of “leave with the current deal” and “revoke Article 50” would not carry legitimacy unless there was some clause to allow for people who want neither option. For instance it could be that the result would only recognised if it by a clear majority of the ballot papers counted.

If parliament remains in its current state, it is clearly in the interests of the EU not to extend, to ensure that there is minimum continued disruption to the EU from Brexit. It is also clear that in preventing any possible disruption from a no-deal Brexit it will have the fullest cooperation from the current UK Executive.

Kevin Marshall

by manicbeancounter on 21/10/2019  •  Permalink
Posted in EU Referendum
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 21/10/2019

https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/10/21/in-the-interests-of-the-eu-should-the-eu-council-grant-an-extension-to-the-uk/

An EU Withdrawal Parliament can agree on?

More than 24 hours overdue there is a political resolution to Brexit that will form the basis of a withdrawal agreement. It is enthusiastically endorsed by both Boris Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker. Further, the EU appears to be ruling out any extension of the withdrawal period beyond 31st October. Therefore, the Benn Surrender Act, forcing to the Prime Minister to request an extension in the event of parliament failing to pass the agreement, will be meaningless. It takes two tango, and the EU looks to be tired of the dancing.

From a quick read of the document I have extracted some points, and made notes of my opinions. The copy was obtained from Guido Fawkes. I have uploaded the document here. I would commend people to read it themselves before passing judgement. My overall view is that

  • Like the Church of England, the declaration has a very British feel, being short on detail and a lot of fudge.
  • There are some points that are troubling, such as on fisheries.
  • It ratchets into UK law common elements of EU and British politics. Whilst many parts are laudable (e.g. co-operation on security issues and maintenance of human rights) others are reflect current pervasive ideological fads. A liberal democracy should be able to separate the two elements, but in this age of mass and baseless opinions it is the latter that is more important than the former. Traditionally in Britain, it has been common principles that have upheld liberal democratic principles
  • It includes good principles of “a level playing field” and understanding other points of view. Such principles are clearly out of fashion in the current politics of the remainers and the hard left.
  • There is no trace of being bound by EU Law beyond 2020, nor of having to support EU projects financially for an indefinite period.
  • As I state at the foot of the article, the substance might be irrelevent to whether this declaration is accepted by pariament.

On with the extracts.

II. GOODS – A. Objectives and principles includes

20. These arrangements will take account of the fact that following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, the Parties will form separate markets and distinct legal orders. Moving goods across borders can pose risks to the integrity and proper functioning of these markets, which are managed through customs procedures and checks.

This must include some sort of border checks either between Ireland and Northern Ireland, or between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although the backstop has been removed, we have classic diplomatic fudge to replace it. It is a no-go for the DUP.

21. However, with a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as set out in Section XIV of this Part.

B. Tariffs

22. The economic partnership should through a Free Trade Agreement ensure no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors with appropriate and modern accompanying rules of origin, and with ambitious customs arrangements that are in line with the Parties’ objectives and principles above.

It is proposed that there will a common free trade area. This is effectively a customs union in all but name. By implication, external tariffs and regulations will have to be the same, retaining discriminatory trading with the outside world, such as in beef and sugar. Note that it is not “free trade” in true sense of the term, but trading abiding by the same detailed regulations across the trading area. This will likely preclude Britain achieving trade agreements with other countries that are not compliant with those of the EU.

25. Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

There is no current solution to the Northern Ireland border question. A hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland will not be ruled out in the future if talks break down.

III. SERVICES AND INVESTMENT

A. Objectives and principles

27. The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party’s right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

This is effectively the aim of the customs union. Why is Jeremy Corbyn, as a hard-left socialist, so determined to stay in a customs union that supports liberalization of the bastions of capitalism? That is banks and stock markets. This withdrawal agreement will tie the hands of a future Labour Government just as much as being a full member of the EU.

VI. CAPITAL MOVEMENTS AND PAYMENTS

41. The Parties should include provisions to enable free movement of capital and payments related to transactions liberalised under the economic partnership, subject to relevant exceptions.

In the same vein, a future Corbynista Government will be prevented from stopping capital flight.

48. Noting that the United Kingdom has decided that the principle of free movement of persons between the Union and the United Kingdom will no longer apply, the Parties should establish mobility arrangements, as set out below.

The ending of free movement was always going to apply to any withdrawal agreement.

XII. FISHING OPPORTUNITIES

71. …

72. …

73. Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares.

74. The Parties will use their best endeavours to conclude and ratify their new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020 in order for it to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.

The agreement fails to guarantee that the UK will take back control of its own waters. The EU is unlikely to allow the UK to have a policy of “British waters for British vessels”.

XIII. GLOBAL COOPERATION

75. The Parties recognise the importance of global cooperation to address issues of shared economic, environmental and social interest. As such, while preserving their decision-making autonomy, the Parties should cooperate in international fora, such as the G7 and the G20, where it is in their mutual interest, including in the areas of:

a) climate change;

b) sustainable development;

c) cross-border pollution;

d) public health and consumer protection;

e) financial stability; and

f) the fight against trade protectionism.

76. The future relationship should reaffirm the Parties’ commitments to international agreements to tackle climate change, including those which implement the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change, such as the Paris Agreement.

If the British people ever saw sense and wanted to come out of the useless and costly Paris Agreement, the climate consensus could prevent this happening through the courts.

XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION

77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages.

This concept is peculiarly British, especially associated with Eton. Adhering to this perspective of a single set of rules for everyone is the likely reason that most of the major sports in the world, including football, tennis, golf, cricket and rugby are of British origin. However, it is contradiction with current discrimination on the basis acceptance of core beliefs. One is in Post Normal Science (especially on climate change) where lack of acceptance of a politicized mantra such as “climate change is happening, is serious, human caused and solvable” puts one beyond the pale of rational argument. Another is in politics, where failure to accept consensus intellectual beliefs (such as membership of the EU, or the need to abolish capitalism) is sufficient to charge that person with being deluded, or an outright liar. For this reason alone, those on the left, or the more rabid remainers, would be hypocritical to support a deal.

II. GOVERNANCE

B. Management, administration and supervision

126. The Parties should establish a Joint Committee responsible for managing and supervising the implementation and operation of the future relationship, facilitating the resolution of disputes as set out below, and making recommendations concerning its evolution.

127. The Joint Committee should comprise the Parties’ representatives at an appropriate level, establish its own rules of procedures, reach decisions by mutual consent, and meet as often as required to fulfil its tasks. As necessary, it could establish specialised sub-committees to assist it in the performance of its tasks.

This part I quite like. It is the two parties coming together as equals to work through and resolve differences.

C. Interpretation

128. In full respect of the autonomy of the Parties’ legal orders, the Union and the United Kingdom will seek to ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the future relationship.

There may be a lack of suitable candidates from the UK for the Joint Committee, as this type of interpretation requires that one makes the effort to understand opposing perspectives. Certainly, many of the remainer MPs will be disqualified from applying when they lose their current jobs in the upcoming general election.

D. Dispute settlement includes:-

131. The Parties indicate that should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of provisions or concepts of Union law, which may also be indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling as regards the interpretation of Union law. Conversely, there should be no reference to the CJEU where a dispute does not raise such a question.

A good point insofar as UK law is not bound by the CJEU. It is right and proper that matters of interpretation of Union law should be referred to this body.

139. This programme will be designed to deliver the Parties’ shared intention to conclude agreements giving effect to the future relationship by the end of 2020 as set out in paragraph 135. The European Commission is ready to propose applying on a provisional basis relevant aspects of the future relationship, in line with the applicable legal frameworks and existing practice.

There is no open-ended process, where the UK will be at the mercy at the EU legislation, as in the previous withdrawal agreement.

What will happen on Parliament’s Super-Saturday?

However, my comments are largely irrelevant, and so is the detail. Parliament will try any means to stop Brexit. On the other hand, Boris Johnson’s determination, clear vision and optimism have resulted in a declaration that is quite different to the withdrawal agreement rejected three times by parliament. Further, the arch remainers are in a bind now that EU leaders have said they do not want a further extension of the Article 50 period. If the question is truly “deal or no-deal” will they compromise or just abstain? Or will there be some other ruse to stop Brexit? In the Brexit battle Boris, no doubt on advice from political strategist Dominic Cummings, has out-manoeuvred his opponents. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn (Lab), Jo Swinson (Lib-dem), and Ian Blackford (SNP) have all said their parties will vote against this revised deal, they have done so by failing to understood the political trap in which they have fallen. If parliament decides to revoke Article 50 of the EU Treaty they will have to order the Prime Minister to pass this onto the EU. This will clearly be in breach of Article 51 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (1969), as Boris Johnson will only do so under coercion. As such it will make the revocation without legal effect under international law. Further, it is too late to remove the Prime Minister by legitimate means, whilst changing the role of the Prime Minister in the British Constitution at this late stage could be challenged under international law, may not be recognized by the EU and might be received badly by the British public. If the remainers abstain the deal will go through, whilst voting it down will see no-deal Brexit happen by default. Any other ruse may have already been anticipated by Cummings, such as requiring the deal to be approved by a second referendum.

Kevin Marshall

by manicbeancounter on 17/10/2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Brexit, EU Referendum
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 17/10/2019

https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/10/17/an-eu-withdrawal-parliament-can-agree-on/

Are BETRAYAL, SURRENDER and HUMBUG appropriate words to use in Parliament?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson used the words BETRAYAL, SURRENDER and HUMBUG in Parliament following the cancellation of prorogation. The proprietary of using such words I would contend, are in the first instance, dependent on the context used, rather than upon the sensitivities of those on the receiving end of such words. To establish context I will first quote definitions, then look at the context in which they were applied. 

BETRAYAL 

From the Cambridge Dictionary

An act of betraying someone or something, or the fact of someone or something being betrayed

Point 1 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 states

The referendum

(1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

(2)The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.

(3)The day appointed under subsection (2)—

(a)must be no later than 31 December 2017,

(b)must not be 5 May 2016, and

(c)must not be 4 May 2017.

(4)The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

(5)The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—

“Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union”.

(6)In Wales, there must also appear on the ballot papers—

(a)the following Welsh version of the question—

“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”, and

(b)the following Welsh versions of the alternative answers—

“Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd

Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd”.

The Referendum was for the eligible voters to decide by a simple majority vote on whether to Leave or Remain in the EU. I do not get any impression that the Referendum was merely advisory on Parliament. Nor I can see no meaning in the question that implies leaving the EU is contingent on getting a withdrawal agreement with the EU. It is a simple question of in or out, to be decided by the referendum.  Further, I aware in recent memory of Parliament failing to be abide by the results of referenda, even when it goes against the will of a majority. Nor can most political parties claim that they did not vote for the referendum. The vote on the Second Reading of the Bill was 544 to 53, with the 53 opposed coming from the SNP. 

This is further enforced in a biased pamphlet, the government posted to every household. The pamphlet started.

An important decision for the UK

On Thursday, 23 June there will be a referendum. It’s your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union (EU).

There is nothing advisory implied in that statement, nor does it imply leaving would only be in any way partial.

The conclusion was

A once in a generation decision

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

The heading clearly implies that there will be no second referendum to clarify the decision. The last sentence is a statement from the Conservative government of the time. However, in the campaign I was aware of the either Labour or the Lib Dems coming out and saying that they would not respect a vote to leave. Finally, is a letter I recieved dated 08.04.16 from Britain Stronger in Europe, who a few days later become the official Remain campaign. 

The first sentance states

On the 23rd June, you will get to vote in the EU Referendum, and decide whether Britain remains in or leaves the Europe.

Although confusing the EU grouping with the continent, it is quite clear that the remain campaign recognized at the time that it was up to the voters to decide.

So when over three years after the British people voted to leave the EU, parliament trying to block leaving the EU is not a “betrayal”? This cannot ne directed at the Scots Nats, but can be directed at some in the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, the Labour Party and numerous MPs who have left the their parties in the last year.

SURRENDER

This word has a number of meanings at Free Dictionary

1. To relinquish possession or control of (something) to another because of demand or compulsion: surrendered the city to the enemy. See Synonyms at relinquish.

2. To give up in favor of another, especially voluntarily: surrendered her chair to her grandmother.

3. To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.

4. To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to an emotion: surrendered himself to grief.

5. Law To effectuate a surrender of.

“Surrender” refers to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, sponsored by Hilary Benn PC. This Act will forces the Prime Minister to request extension of the withdrawal period until a withdrawal agreement has been agreed. It thus surrenders ability of the Executive to negotiate fair terms with the European Union as there is no ability to depart without an agreement. By so doing, the EU could impose onerous terms, denying any form of genuine independence for the UK from European Union. It thus gives the ability of the EU to send a very clear message to other nations who might consider leaving the club. Further it encourages the EU Council to break with the “plain aim” of Article 50 (3) of the two year withdrawal period, and any subsequent mutually agreed extension, of the “promotion of stability and certainty in the EU“. Further, it compels the executive to surrender its powers to achieve aims for which it has a constitutional mandate, to a legislature which has gained no mandate for its actions. Indeed, parliament has twice refused to call a general election to gain a mandate to, in substance, reverse the result of the EU Referendum.

Humbug

From the Mirriam Webster dictionary, the noun is defined as

1a: something designed to deceive and mislead Their claims are humbug. b: a willfully false, deceptive, or insincere person He’s just an old humbug. denounced as humbugs the playwrights who magnify the difficulties of their craft— Times Literary Supplement

2: an attitude or spirit of pretense and deception in all his humbug, in all his malice and hollowness— Mary Lindsay

3: NONSENSE, DRIVELacademic humbug

4 British: a hard usually peppermint-flavored candy

The use of the word “humbug” was used by the Prime Minister in response a emotional outburst from Paula Sherriff MP. The full exchange is below.

The claimed prejorative language referred to is in relation to the Benn Act included “betrayal” and “surrender“. As outlined above, these can be viewed by those who voted to leave as accurate terms to describe that has been happening in the House of Commons. In this context it is not prejorative (i.e. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force). In this context, the honourable member for Dewsbury’s comments can be perceived as insincere or deceitful. Given that around 57% voted to Leave in Dewsbury, and the town has a history of racial intolerance, it is not surprising. However, that is not to condone the vicious threats that have been made against MPs, including against Ms Sherriff. Instead there are strategies to minimize the impacts.

Strategies to minimize prejorative language or hate speech

I have some suggestions to minimize and diffuse the increasingly bad feeling in this country towards parliament, along with the increasingly polarized views. My concern is that this once great country is heading towards a quasi dictatorship, with fundamental questions of direction and ideology being put beyond democratic decision-making.

First, in terms of what is allowable in terms of speech, try to gain some objective standards. For instance, whilst Paula Sherriff objects to the word “betrayal” from the Prime Minister in relation to the biggest constitutional crisis in this country for decades she herself has used the word in relation to more trivial issues. The hard left in general, and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell in particular, have long used language that encourages highly predjudiced, even hatred, towards opponents.

Second is to substantiate one’s claims based on the real world, not on mass hearsay. Then be prepared to defend these claims, showing them superior against the alternatives. There is a long tradition of this principle in English Common Law with trial by jury. The onus there is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, with the defence able to challenge the allegations made. This is overseen by a judge, who tries to ensure a fair hearing to both sides, and will take a very dim view of any attempt to undermine that fairness. In this respect I do not believe that a case can be made for a no-deal Brexit being catastrophic disaster. Rather there are risks of transitional issues, which a competent government should be able to mostly mitigate by sound policy. Further a no-deal Brexit can open up new opportunities, which a government with vision and optimism can either exploit, or stand back and let entrpreneurs expolit them,

Third, is for MPs to respect the mandate that they were elected on. On most issues it is expected that MPs should employ some pragmatism. But where there is a complete about-face on the central issue of their political careers,there is a responsibility for those politicians to seek a new mandate. Distrust in the democratic process will only be increased if politicians do an about-face and spurn the opportunity to seek a new mandate. Severely marginalizing a great mass of the people is a sure way to get civil unrest and calls for authoritarian government.

Kevin Marshall

by manicbeancounter on 09/10/2019  •  Permalink
Posted in EU Referendum, Politicians
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 09/10/2019

https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/10/09/are-betrayal-surrender-and-humbug-appropriate-words-to-use-in-parliament/

Time to enact the boundary changes for a more level playing field at next General Election

An outcome of the expenses scandal in 2009 both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had pledged in their 2010 manifestos to reduce the number of constituencies. The outcome was Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, with the reduction from 650 to 600, along with a review to achieve more equal constituency sizes. The Boundary Comission published its initial recommendations in 2016, then, following extensive consultations, published revised recommendations in 2018. Given the historically low esteem with which the House of Commons is currently held, and the deadlock on the Brexit issue, perhaps there should be a coming together in the House of Commons to enact these changes to show that they can work together to produce a more level playing field in general elections. The main block on such changes is that greater fairness will lead to shifts in the makeup of Parliament.

2018 Review Changes by Region

The Boundary Commissions 2018 recommendations, published on 05/09/18 are spread across sites for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Using the results of the 2017 General Election I constructed a table to show the proposed constituency changes by region.

Figure 1 : Proposed Constituency Changes by Region. Additionally is an apportionment of the seats won by Conservative and Labour at GE 2017 on a national and regional basis. As the decrease smallest decreases in seat numbers tend to be in the regions where the Conservatives are stronger, GE 2017 fought on the new boundaries may have given the Conservatives an majority.

All regions will lose seats in the proposed boundary changes, but the proportionate changes vary considerably. Wales will lose over a quarter of its seats, going from 40 to 29 seats. At the other extreme, the South East, which is already the biggest region, will lose just one seat. The result of implementing the changes would make the average number per constituency across regions far more equal than currently. It should be noted that both Scotland and Wales will still have broadly the same representation per capita in Westminster as England, despite having devolved parliaments.

More detailed analysis from Electoral Calculus

The above gives a general high level impression. The Electoral Calculus website provides a far more detailed analysis through its “Make your Prediction” tool. I first plugged in the results of the 2017 election for the major parties based on the 2017 boundaries at regional level.

Figure 2: Electoral Calculus prediction for 2017 General Election based on 2017 boundaries. The Speaker is included in the Conservative Party Numbers

This fairly accurately produces the 2017 result at the top level with a hung parliament. The predictor slightly overstates the Labour seats, fails to predict any seats for Plaid Cymru and understates the Lib-Dem seats for the same reason. That is the support for the parties is more concentrated than the program allows. Plugging in the national results produces the prediction of a small Conservative majority, much for the same reason. The program does not properly allow for concentrated regional or local support.

More interesting is the prediction based on the 2018 boundaries with 600 seats.

Fig 3 : Electoral Calculus’s estimate of the 2017 General Election result against an estimate based on regional party vote share.

The detailed Electoral Calculus analysis predicts the Conservatives would have been just one short of a majority if the 2017 General Election has been fought on the 2018 600 seat boundaries, or two short if the Speaker is excluded. The national predictor shows a majority of 12. These figures are very similar to my rough estimates above, with a slight Conservative bias in top level forecasts. Given that both the main parties have seen losses of MPs, on these figures neither would see a large net loss of sitting MPs, provided that both Labour and Conservatives were in a similar position in the polls to 2017. However, this is not the case. Electoral Calculus, based on opinion polls from 03 Sep 2019 to 27 Sep 2019, predict a Conservative majority of 12. Plugging in the national vote shares into the predictor, I get a Conservative majority of 26. Using the 2018 Boundaries, with 600 seats the majority increases to 54. Conservative seat share rises from 52.5% to 54.0%, whilst Labours seat share falls from 32.6% to 30.8%. A more level playing field works in the Conservatives favour. However, the bias in the predictor means that the difference is likely smaller.

Fig 4 : Based on opinion polls from 03 Sep 2019 to 27 Sep 2019, Electoral Calculus national GE predictor based on current 650 seat parliameny and 2018 constituency boundaries

However, voting for fairer boundaries should not be based on immediate polling. One would hope that HM’s Official Opposition would have ambitions of winning and election in the future. What would be the impact of swapping the poll positions of Conservatives and Labour? Figure 5 does just that.


Fig 5 : Same assumptions as fig 4, with the exception that polling positions of Conservatives and Labour are reversed.

If the polling positions of Conservatives and Labour were reversed then the Labour Party would be in a similar position to under the existing system and under the 2018 constituency boundaries with 600 seats. This is however a likely scenario under the current circumstances. Allowing for a Conservative bias in the Electoral Calculus estimates, Labour would likely obtain an overall majority. If Conservative votes fell away, they would mostly go to the Brexit Party, whilst gains for Labour would come from the Liberal Democrats. In the final figure I also assume that the Brexit Party are up 5% and the Lib Dems down 5%.

Fig 6 : Same assumptions as fig 5, with the exception that Brexit Party are up 5% and Lib Dems down 5%.

This marginally improves Labour’s position at the expense of the Lib Dems, sufficient to gain a slim overall majority. Again, allowing for the Conservation bias in the figures, the majority would be less marginal.

The Labour party bias under the current boundaries

Although the Electoral Calculus figures have a slight Conservative bias, the Boundary Comission changes will favour the Conservatives over Labour. Figure 1 indicates part of the issue. In Wales, the North West and the North East are regions have both larger than average falls in the number of seats and where Labour have a clear majority of the seats. Conversely in the Eastern, East Midlands, South West and South East Regions have both much smaller than average falls in seat numbers and where the Conservatives have a clear majority of the seats. The current constituency boundaries have a Labour Party bias that will be rectified. I have created a couple of charts from the General Election 2017 results, one of which amplifies the current Labour bias in the voting figures.

Fig 7 : From the 2017 General Election results, bands of the percentage of valid votes gained by each party. The upper chart is the count of seats in each band. The lower chart shows the average constituency size.

In 2017, the Conservatives achieved at least 50% of the vote in 243 seats. For Labour it was 222 seats. The Conservatives gained 40-50% of the vote in 135 seats, winning 71. Labour gained 40-50% of the vote in 89 seats, winning 35. The problem for Labour is that their vote is more highly concentrated than the Conservatives. Thus they need a higher share of the national poll, on a uniform swing, to gain a parlimentary majority than the Conservatives under current boindaries. Put another way, on average the Conservatives gained 55.46% of the valid vote in the constituencies they won, whereas Labour gained 59.33%. Of course the greater spread of votes across constituencies works in the Conservatives favour in winning elections, but against them relatively if party support drops below 25%. Conversely the current boundaries work in Labour’s favour in the event of a poll collapse, but it is mostly due to their concentrated support.

The lower chart illustrates the problem for Labour from the boundary changes. Whereas the average constituency size where the Conservatives recieved > 50% of the vote in 2017 is 75,400, for Labour it is 70,500. Under the 600 seat Parliament, whereas the Conservatives would retain 243 such seats, Labour would expect to only recieve 208 seats, a loss of 14. For the seats gained with less than 50% of the vote the Conservatives would expect to go from 74 to 71, whilst Labour from 40 to 38. Thus in a 600 seat parliament the Conservatives would expect to have 314 seats, as against 317 seats in a 650 seat Parliament. Labour would go from 40.3% of the seats to 41.0% on the same rough calculation.

Finally, there is another paradox. Although, on average, Labour constituencies have a smaller electorate than Conservative ones, of the 31 seats with an electorate over 85,000, 14 are Labour. There are three Labour seats with over 90,000 voters – Bristol West, West Ham and Manchester Central. It is not an even picture across the country.

Concluding Remarks

It is now eight years since legislation was passed to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, along with making them more equal in size. Had the 2017 election been faught on this more level playing field it is most likely that the Conservatives would have been returned with a small majority rather than losing that majority. The impact of enacting the changes would be to counter the relative discrimination that much of the South and East of England has in general elections due to having larger average constituencies. Most of all it would be of benefit to those in the 31 constituencies with over 85,000 voters, listed below.

Fig 8 : The gemeral election 2017 results for the 31 constituencies with electorate of over 85,000.

Kevin Marshall

by manicbeancounter on 08/10/2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Conservative Party
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 08/10/2019

https://manicbeancounter.com/2019/10/08/time-to-enact-the-boundary-changes-for-a-more-level-playing-field-at-next-general-election/