British democracy & the EU vote

[peterd]

Right i know the majority of you proberly wont be bothered or give a dam but on monday there is a commons vote on a referendum on europe due too a 100,000 + votes being posted on the goverment site

now my argument is not about the vote weather your fore or against it, my argument is against the three line whips the 3 main parties are deploying for OUR MPs to return a no vote, this is a afront to the democractic principles of this country and is it time we abolished this practice and introduce sercret ballots for this type of vote. This will also stop political parties leaders from intimdated our MPs


what everyone thought on this or is it too heavy for the majority to participate in ?

at the end of the day, its the silent majority that can stop this and alter the way things are done, but you got to care ?

[Maths girl]

I do not usually get involved in political debates but on this point of order I am 100% in agreement with you Pete.

To hear MP's saying that they will be voting against the referendum because of the 3 line whip even thought they are aware that many of their constituents have told them this is against their wishes makes no sense of democracy.

[SRD]

There are a few general points under discussion here;

Very few MPs are elected because of who they are rather than the Party they support.

Without the Party apparatus (and financial support) very few of the MPs would be elected, let alone get promoted onto committees or gain ministerial positions, so it is understandable that the Party demands their allegiance.

It has never been the case that MPs have truly represented their constituents as opposed to their Party; in the past they would have been 'owned' by a wealthy patron who would dictate how they voted, but in the modern era MPs have always been expected to put their Party's needs before their own or their individual constituencies, at best they have been allowed to abstain, but only if their Party's position isn't under threat.

It would require a vast shake up of the political system to effect the changes that would be needed to change the dependence of the MP on their Party, a shake up that the electorate have consistently refused to accept.

More specifically;

Given the pressures that the Government is under with its gross mishandling of the economy and the wellbeing of the nation, let alone its foreign adventures, it hardly needs the extra pressure that the media would bring to bear on it should the vote be close, let alone if it goes against the prevailing will of the Government.

No one who clearly understands the international economic situation (even Eurosceptics) thinks that anything would be gained at the moment by more pressure being heaped on the Eurozone, and the markets would react very badly to a 'get out of Europe' vote by any of the members of the EU. At a time when the water is lapping over the gunwhales the last thing the boat needs is someone leaping about upsetting the balance and refusing to do their share of the bailing. And it's all very well saying that one less member in the boat would make it safer for the rest but not only are we, as a nation, a strong, calming, influence on the situation but the waters out there are full of sharks and it would be a stupid thing to jump in. Some of the weaker members may, in the long run, have to be thrown in, but that won't do anything for the morale of the rest waiting their turn to be consigned to the waves and will only reinforce the greed of the sharks.

This is part of a more general attempt by a small group of extremely right wing Conservatives to de-stabilise the Coalition. It's a deliberate, cynical move and any government would take appropriate action to prevent misrule by even more of a minority than they are themselves.

On the other hand;

I think that the Conservatives have made an error in this, the debate isn't binding on Government and there are less tendentious means of ensuring that the debate turns their way.

Finally;
All of the Parties have, at some time or another, promised a debate, if not a referendum, on the subject 'at the right time' and I don't see that, under any circumstances, this is the right time, especially for a half-cocked debate that is actually there for other reasons.

[peterd]

Every one can put a point of view weather your for or agianst the vote, and sometimes it never the right time for some debates. but thats not the question

The question was should the three line line whip be abolished, as the practice allows a minority to dictate to the majority. yes party may say you must vote this way as we finance your election and we want loyalty but what loyalties is the public getting when were paying all there wages and expensise?

[Rob]

That's what a Whip does. The function of a Whip is to make sure party members vote according to official party policy.
Of course it's not democratic.Do MP's in parliamentary debates ever consider their constituents?

[snoopysue]

We don't have whips in Denmark, of course there is always the risk of being thrown out of your party if you are blatently voting against your party - on the other hand some mp's are safer than others as in Denmark you can choose whether or not to give your vote the the candidate personally, or to their party as a whole. This means that mp's who have enough personal votes can't be thrown out of parliament, but those who don't (the majority) can be replaced by their party.

[peterd]

That the reason i said it should be a secret vote to stop recriminations from the parties and party leaders after all this vote is nothing to do with the goverment polices its a back bench private member bill

[gardener]

I think that if the party manifesto says that the party "will be positive members of the EU" then it is reasonable to expect MPs to toe the party line and not vote in favour of a debate about a referendum. It isn't a matter of conscience is it? They all stood for election on that manifesto, surely?

Not that I think the whip system is perfect. But we don't have one here and it is a total shambles with a government trying to pass things and basically having to promise all sorts of stuff in order to get an extra vote or two. I'm not sure what would be best but fair's fair, if you accepted nomination for a party then you should play by their rules or resign.

[peterd]

Well as we thought most Mp's ain't got a spine, had to laugh tonight though as this is a quote from our MP web Page

" The most important part of an MPs work is listening to their constituents, and you can contact Helen in a number of ways."

and here was my email to her

Pity you didnt read your own quote before last night vote, as this is one you won't be getting

[Jimmy]

Nice one Pete.

[peterd]

Well folks its Back anyone wants to sign it and pass it on here the link

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/356

or this

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.g ... ions/20133