MPs to vote on calling a referendum for Britain to leave EU

[Bedlam]

It doesn't seem to have garnered much attention abroad, but Scotland is about ready to make a push for independence,

Would you be able to provide any links about this? I remember hearing a bit of rumbling about it a few months ago but that was dismissed as a never-would-happen thing.

I'm afraid I dontn have time to look up links at the moment but several of the local papers (the Scotsman and such) had stories at the end of last week that the majority of the population were behind independence. However, that is something of a slow news day story around here.

[Darth Tanner]

but I can't imagine a lot of people who voted for the SNP would vote No in any referendum they manage to squeeze out of Westminster.

source

Opinion fluctuates between 23% - 42% in favour of leaving the UK. That's hardly a overwhelming majority. Especially when you consider how much money Scotland gets from the rest of the UK, around £1,500 more per head than UK average I believe. Not to say it won't happen but it’s likely not something that will happen within the next few decades and its even further away for Wales and Northern Ireland.

And in any case, who is going to take us seriously wihen we're in only marginally better fiscal shape than Greece or Ireland?

What We are in massively better shape than either Ireland or Greece, our economy might be crumbling but we at least have started to get our debt under control.

[Hillary]

It doesn't seem to have garnered much attention abroad, but Scotland is about ready to make a push for independence,

Would you be able to provide any links about this? I remember hearing a bit of rumbling about it a few months ago but that was dismissed as a never-would-happen thing.

I'm afraid I dontn have time to look up links at the moment but several of the local papers (the Scotsman and such) had stories at the end of last week that the majority of the population were behind independence. However, that is something of a slow news day story around here.

Support for full independence tends to vary quite a lot. Salmond stated his desire to push for an independence vote after the last Scottish elections, but didn't say when it would be. My particular opinion on this is that Scotland will be devolved more power to it and that will satisfy the vast majority of Scots and maybe even the SNP leadership itself.

I can't see full independence happening for many years, although it seems bound to happen eventually.

And in any case, who is going to take us seriously wihen we're in only marginally better fiscal shape than Greece or Ireland? We've papered over the cracks somewhat in the short to medium term but unemployment is still hovering close to 10%, and the contraction of the public sector is not helping.

Oh give me a break - have you seen the unemployment levels in the rest of Europe? Our level is actually 8.1%, not exactly "hovering close to 10%". As for our fiscal shape being not much better than Greece or Ireland - you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Skgoa]

Do you know that in some democracies you vote for people who then vote on who gets to be the leader?

(If you regard that as undemocratic you might just as well write Germany off as undemocractic as well).

Minor nitpick: our highest court has ruled that we ARE undemocratic.

Bullcrap.

Get the stick out of your ass and google "Überhangmandat".

[Thanas]

As I said, Bullcrap. It says the ways certain votes are counted and handled is problematic. Nowhere does it invalidate the democracy of Germany.

[Coop D'etat]

Just because a region votes in a lot of representatives from a independence supporting party doesn't mean that the region has even close to majority support for independence, especially in a first past the post system. Quebec voted in separatists governments and separatist representatives at the federal level for years and never had majority support for independence at its height they could only manage a tie for a very nebulously worded referendum. Its not that uncommon for people to vote in independence parties because they like other parts of their platform.

[Samuel]

and google "Überhangmandat".

For those of us who don't speak German, care to elucidate?

[Thanas]

When Germans vote, they do so with two votes. One for a political party. This vote counts for the percentage of seats a party gets. The other vote is for a specific candidate.

What happens quite often is that one party has more direct candiate victories than total seat percentages. For example, in recent years the left was represented only in German politics because their candidates won in head to head races. In such a case, the party winning more direct candidate races than percentage races gets those extra seats tucked on. This is to ensure that the direct voice of the people saying "I prefer so and so" is not ignored.

The Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court) found the special way in which those votes count and serve as overrepresentation of parties who otherwise would not have as many seats a violation of democratic principles. They want to discourage strategic voting (like, voting for a direct candidate first and then voting for a smaller party which would have no chance in a direct contest second to boost that party).

None of that declares Germany is not a democracy as Skgoa claimed, it just says that the specific way in which those votes were counted was undemocratic in those cases where it served to overrrepresent some votes. It will be mostly detrimental to the conservatives and the smaller parties (liberals, green, left).

[Skgoa]

You might want to lay off the strawman kool-aid...

[Iroscato]

You might want to lay off the strawman kool-aid...

Nice going with the repeated one-liner replies, Skgoa. That's generally considered bad tactics in debating and arguing. Now, I don't know very much at all about Germany, so I'm keeping out of this, just thought I'd point out that you're coming across as a bit of a cock.

[Thanas]

You might want to lay off the strawman kool-aid...

Hey now. You were the one who claimed

Minor nitpick: our highest court has ruled that we ARE undemocratic.

when in fact the court said none of that.

[Skgoa]

The court said that the current law violates a basic democratic principle. Ok, the way I phrased it was unfortunate, but what I wanted to get at is: you can have broken parts that desperately need fixing, even if the system as a whole functions. It doesn't invalidate the system, but denying the problems just because it does function, is not a good argument to make.
The Überhangmandate are a problem, because they can result in votes counting negatively. The way power is aloted in the EU has several problems, one of those is that many officials are just to many steps away from the voter. In Germany, appointments directly reflect the will of the people, as the ruling coalition needs 50% of the vote. In the EU, people who no one ever heart of get to set major policy, while only having to please the governments of the member states, not the people. Another problem is that votes from some member states count more than from others.

[Thanas]

The court said that the current law violates a basic democratic principle. Ok, the way I phrased it was unfortunate, but what I wanted to get at is: you can have broken parts that desperately need fixing, even if the system as a whole functions. It doesn't invalidate the system, but denying the problems just because it does function, is not a good argument to make.

I'd like you to point out where I denied the problem.

The Überhangmandate are a problem, because they can result in votes counting negatively. The way power is aloted in the EU has several problems, one of those is that many officials are just to many steps away from the voter. In Germany, appointments directly reflect the will of the people, as the ruling coalition needs 50% of the vote. In the EU, people who no one ever heart of get to set major policy, while only having to please the governments of the member states, not the people.

I can agree that some intermediate steps may be needed, but unless the EU gets more power and becomes a true state I don't think it is the most pressing problem. The lack of a true constitution is.

Another problem is that votes from some member states count more than from others.

That is not a problem per se nor does it make the EU undemocratic. Note the US senate for example.

[D.Turtle]

I would just add that Überhangmandate by themselves aren't the problem and aren't unconstitutional. The only problem that is unconstitutional is the very rare and specific case of potentially losing a seat because of getting more votes that is unconstitutional, as it makes votes potentially have a negative weight.

To be honest, I don't even know if a case has ever happened where that potential problem actually occurred in reality.

[Skgoa]

It was abused en masse* in the last european and federal election respectively, in an attempt to hurt the FDP. It knda-sorta worked, but it wasn't enough to get them below the threshold of entry to parliament.

Note: french, not english, meaning of the phrase.

[D.Turtle]

Erm, you obviously do not understand exactly what was ruled unconstitutional.

Überhangmandate themselves are NOT unconstitutional.

The unconstitutional aspect is the negative vote weight (German wikipedia).

[Skgoa]

Erm, you seem incapable of reading.

This was exactly the loophole people tried to exploit.

I have not claimed anything else.

[D.Turtle]

Then you'll have to explain how the system was abused en masse. The only time that the negative vote-weight was really obvious and had an effect on people voting was the vote in Dresden in 2005, because it was two weeks later than the rest and all results were in. At that point it became clear that if the CDU would gain more than 41 thousand Zweitstimmen (votes), they would lose a seat because of the system. This was a very realistic number, there was a big campaign to get people to vote for the FDP with their Zweitstimme, and in the end they didn't lose a seat.

This is not abusing the system en masse. It has never had an effect on majorities and doesn't really have a realistic possibility of doing so.

[Crazedwraith]

MPs have rejected a call for a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, despite a significant rebellion against Prime Minister David Cameron.

The motion was opposed by the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour, yet 111 voted for the motion, 483 against.

Before a five-hour debate, Mr Cameron told MPs it was the wrong time for a referendum and urged them not to rebel.

Two ministerial aides, who joined the rebellion, look set to lose their jobs.

The Commons debate on the issue was prompted after a petition was signed by more than 100,000 people.

The motion called for a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU, leave it or renegotiate its membership.

The government was expected to win easily - and even if it had lost, the result would not be binding on ministers.

Conservative MP David Nuttall, who proposed the motion, argued there were more than 40 million people of voting age in the UK who had not been consulted on the question of Europe.

And he said the UK Parliament was becoming "ever more impotent" as the "tentacles" of the European Union "intruded into more and more areas of national life".

Mark Pritchard, secretary of the powerful Tory 1922 committee, said the debate would be "a defining moment for many MPs who have for years called themselves Eurosceptic".

'Out-of-touch'
In a statement to the Commons, Mr Cameron said he shared the rebels' "yearning for fundamental reform", and promised "the time for reform was coming".

He insisted he remained "firmly committed" to "bringing back more powers" from Brussels, but on demands for a referendum, he said amid an economic crisis the timing was wrong and Britain's national interest was to be part of the EU.

"When your neighbour's house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help them to put out the flames - not least to stop the flames reaching your own house," he said.

Labour leader Ed Miliband, who was expected to see Eurosceptic MPs within his own party rebel, likened the Tories' divisions of Europe to a rerun of an old movie.

He called the Tories an "out-of-touch party tearing itself apart over Europe".

However, he did agree with the prime minister that it was the wrong time for a referendum.

"At this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years, to debate an in-out referendum is something our country cannot afford.

"The best answer to the concerns of the British people about the concerns of the European Union is to reform the way it works, not to leave it," he added.

'Heavy heart'
Tory backbenchers voiced their dismay at the three-line whip - the strongest order a party can give - on Conservative MPs, which meant any who voted against the government would be expected to resign from government jobs.

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson told the Commons he would vote for the motion "with a heavy heart" and "take the consequences", which may mean losing his position as parliamentary private secretary to Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson.

He said he wished there could have been a well-informed reasonable debate, instead of "heavy-handed whipping" and "catastrophic management" by his party.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

The only communication I have had urging me to vote against it was a telephone call from the whips' office”

Andrew Bridgen
Conservative MP
Fellow Tory MP Adam Holloway, a parliamentary private secretary to Europe minister David Lidington, indicated he would rebel, thereby losing his post.

He urged his fellow MPs to show people the parliamentary system could work.

To cheers in the chamber, he said: "If you can't support a particular policy then the honest course of action is of course to stand down, and I want decisions to be made more closely by the people they affect, by local communities, not upwards towards Brussels."

"Well I'm not now prepared to go back on my words to my constituents and I'm really staggered that loyal people like me have actually been put in this position," he said.

"If Britain's future as an independent country is not a proper matter for a referendum, then I have absolutely no idea what is."

Conservative Andrew Bridgen said dozens and dozens of his constituents had been urging him via email, telephone and letter to support the motion.

"The only communication I have had urging me to vote against it was a telephone call from the whips' office," he told the Commons.

Anger was also directed towards Foreign Secretary William Hague, who earlier tried to quell the rebellion by calling the motion "a piece of graffiti".

Later in the Commons, he said a referendum would "add to economic uncertainty at a dangerous and difficult time" and suggested most British people did not want to "say yes or no to everything in the EU".

Tory MPs accused him of going native and abandoning his Eurosceptic views.

The results despite significant opposition from Cameron's own party. The motion has been dropped. No referendum is in the offing.

Still bit of a phyrric victory for our PM. Even if I think it's the right decision.

[Hillary]

The 'rebellion' was a fairly empty gesture imo. Labour had already declared it would vote with the government, meaning that the 'rebels' could score themselves a few brownie points with their constituents, safe in the knowledge that they weren't actually going to win the vote.

My favourite part of the debate was a 'pro-referendum' MP stating that voters would not understand why they could vote for Strictly Come Dancing and X Factor but not for whether the UK should be part of the EU. The obvious (but electrorally unsayable) response, of course, is to ask whether we would want a serious issue such as this decided by people who would spend money on voting for X Factor contestants.

[Skgoa]

Then you'll have to explain how the system was abused en masse. The only time that the negative vote-weight was really obvious and had an effect on people voting was the vote in Dresden in 2005, because it was two weeks later than the rest and all results were in. At that point it became clear that if the CDU would gain more than 41 thousand Zweitstimmen (votes), they would lose a seat because of the system. This was a very realistic number, there was a big campaign to get people to vote for the FDP with their Zweitstimme, and in the end they didn't lose a seat.

This is not abusing the system en masse. It has never had an effect on majorities and doesn't really have a realistic possibility of doing so.

Please check my post for the occurence of the word "attempt". I have never claimed that it worked. Actually, I stated from the very beginning that it didn't work. But people DID identify possible "weak spots" (for lack of a better term) and there was an effort to coordinate votes through mass communication. (I.e. emails and Twitter.) So yeah, please stop telling me what it did or did not do, who I voted for or why I voted the way I did. Just because you were not informed doesn't mean it didn't happen - and the same is true for anyone else who I might know but you don't.

[D.Turtle]

Please check my post for the occurence of the word "attempt". I have never claimed that it worked. Actually, I stated from the very beginning that it didn't work. But people DID identify possible "weak spots" (for lack of a better term) and there was an effort to coordinate votes through mass communication. (I.e. emails and Twitter.) So yeah, please stop telling me what it did or did not do, who I voted for or why I voted the way I did. Just because you were not informed doesn't mean it didn't happen - and the same is true for anyone else who I might know but you don't.

I never said anything about how you voted, in fact I just now noticed that you are from Dresden, so stop the fucking strawmen and blatant lying. Going back to what I took offence with, and why I got involved.

You claimed that:

It was abused en masse* in the last european and federal election respectively, in an attempt to hurt the FDP. It knda-sorta worked, but it wasn't enough to get them below the threshold of entry to parliament.

This is completely untrue.

European elections do not involve Überhangmandate, and hence can't be affected.

AFAIK there was no attempt to hurt the FDP though the usage of negative vote weight. In fact, it isn't even possible to lower the number of seats a party gets beneath the number they get directly through the Zweitstimme. Negative vote-weight can only affect the number of Überhangmandate a party gets. Since the FDP almost never gets Überhangmandate (in federal elections), they can't be affected by negative vote-weight. It especially can't be used to keep them out of the parliament.

Once again, Überhangmandate are not unconstitutional.

[Skgoa]

Once again, I never claimed Überhangmandate themselves to be unconstitutional.

What I do admit to, though, is that you are right. I double checked my assertions and as it turns out, memories of distinct elections had meshed together in my recollection. There was an organized effort to cost the CSU(!) entry into the EU parliament, and there were efforts to hurt the FDP's results in the federal election(based on polling data we had before election day), but I mistakenly mixed them up.

[D.Turtle]

Once again, I never claimed Überhangmandate themselves to be unconstitutional.

What I do admit to, though, is that you are right. I double checked my assertions and as it turns out, memories of distinct elections had meshed together in my recollection. There was an organized effort to cost the CSU(!) entry into the EU parliament, and there were efforts to hurt the FDP's results in the federal election(based on polling data we had before election day), but I mistakenly mixed them up.

No problem, its just that something somewhere didn't fit, and I was unsure what exactly that was and simply repeated the whole thing in order to clarify that point. Anyway, I think its now quite clear what exactly the unconstitutional aspect is/was.

Would you mind elaborating on those two efforts you mentioned (CSU and FDP)? It sounds relatively interesting

[Skgoa]

There is not much to elaborate. In general, younger adults (i.e. those who tend to be more radical in their oppiosition to these parties) are somewhat able to interprete abstract data. So some people took the time to identify weak districts and what whould have to happen to change the outcome to anything more favourable to them. Now, something our non-german viewers should be made aware of: the CSU is only on the ballot in the southern states, since they are allied with the much bigger CDU. But they still have to clear the percentage threshold to enter parliament. Due to that and their worsening polling numbers, they seemed very near failing to do so. Thise would have hurt the conservatists in the EU parliament and would have been pretty embarrassing for incumbent chancellor Merkel, who was up for re-election later that year. And the FDP? They are always in danger of falling below the threshold and since people only had to hurt them to get at the much bigger CDU, too, they are an obvious target.
When the target districts were identified, the word was spread via Twitter, email, etc. - I know about at least some people who made donna-esque voteswapping deals. This was done in particular in Saxony, since the Pirate Party wasn't on the ballot here. So we were free to day anything else with our votes.


edit: So yeah, it was actually much nerdier and more mundane than it sounded. No intense policy or strategy discussions while walking from one office to another...