• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

When Whipping is Unnecessary

Kate Hoey says the referendum debate could have been the start of ending the growing disillusionment of the public with politicians.

By Kate Hoey

25 Oct 2011, 21:16

The  referendum debate could have been the start of ending the growing disillusionment of the public with politicians. In itself it was a good 5 and a half hours of discussion with over 50 speakers. The Chamber was full, particularly on the Conservative side. Indeed it was noticeable how few Labour MP’s turned up  and took part. Most who  spoke voted for the referendum but it did beg the question - if Labour is so united against a referendum where where all  the foot soldiers proclaiming their support.  Once the party leaders imposed a three line whip the defeat of the motion was certain. The whipping was completely unnecessary and counter productive. Indeed I didn’t meet a single Labour MP who thought Labour should have imposed a whip.

It is important to remember that this was a backbench committee debate,a new method of ensuring that the backbenchers have a proper role in parliament. The e-petition idea is new too and  is proving popular. However any debate is not binding and up until  this debate no Whip had been imposed.

So even if it had been passed, it would not have been binding on the coalition government; Now that the opportunity to show the public that MP’s aren’t voting fodder and that they want to have a conversation with the electorate has gone, the cynicism of the public will  grow.
It is not even as if  the European Union issue will go away. Indeed I detect a real shift  in the Conservative backbenchers. We saw a determination in the speeches - not just from those who  have resigned their government jobs - that this is a matter of principle. Many MPs spoke of promises they had made to their electorate and from all  sides there was an agreement that the EU has changed so much that we can’t just go on as we are allowing a creeping takeover of more and more of our powers to run our own country.

I cannot think of one directive or regulation that the EU has introduced that we in our own parliament could not have introduced if we had wanted to. So all those who ask about workers rights, the social chapter and other social legislation should be clear -  if we wanted those laws  then the British Parliament could have introduced them – not an unaccountable Commission in Brussels.

On the morning of the debate a copy of Ian Milne’s Time to Say NO arrived in my office. Flicking through it I found the interesting fact that the Commonwealth with 55 member countries will have 38 per cent of the Global Labour Force (GLF) by 2050 compared with the EU’s 27 members having only 5 per cent of the GLF.

Surely it is now time to stop being  Little Europeans and look  to the rest of the world for our future prosperity. True internationalists can stop  worrying about the bureaucracy of the EU and start working on a world Common Market.

The British people have seen through the spin and hype of the EU - they want their say, they want a referendum and they want it soon.
They know it is unlikely that no matter how much David Cameron would like a repatriation of powers back to us in the UK this will be almost impossible to achieve. The threat of a referendum certainly would make it easier for our negotiators but ultimately we will probably need that referendum to take place.

The handling of the debate this week has made that date likely to be so much sooner than anyone who opposed the motion would like.