The EU Referendum Bill passes another hurdle - but time is running out

EU Referendum Bill rises again

The Conservative party's attempt to force an EU Referendum in 2017 onto the statute book is back in the guise of Bob Neill's Private Member's Bill (remember James Wharton's bill was killed of by the Lords back in January). Once again, the bill has passed at second reading stage in the House of Commons (283 MPs voted in favour and none were brave enough to vote against).

So what are its prospects for success this time around?

The Bill will now go to Committee stage where the best strategy for those who wish to scupper it (without been seen to be overtly doing so) will be to amend the bill in order to prevent it from being 'parliament acted' - something which will happen automatically if the Bill is rejected outright or is still stuck in the Lords by the time parliament is dissolved for the general election. Since the unsuccessful Bill has to be exactly the same on both occasions, if Labour and Lib Dem MPs manage to - for example - extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds as happened in the Scottish referendum, the Parliament Act could not be used. The exact make-up of the committee (will any pro-referendum Labour MPs be included?) could prove crucial.

Another problem is that unlike James Wharton - who topped the Private Members' Bill ballot last time around - Bob Neill only came third, so his Bill is behind the two other PMBs in the parliamentary pecking order. Both are relatively contentious themselves - one seeks to fundamentally reform the so-called 'bedroom tax' and the other aims to enshrine the government's to spend 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid - so the more time they spend in Committee stage, the longer it will take for Neill's Bill to progress to that stage.

If however it does navigate its way through the Commons unamended, then it will be for the next UK Government to either hold the referendum as instructed, ignore the law or seek to reverse the legislation. Either way, it will have served its primary purpose - convincing a sceptical electorate that the Conservatives are serious about a referendum.

EU Referendum Bill: Peers or the People - will Cameron seek to overrule the Lords?

Which century do the Lords think they live in?

So the assembled House of Quangocrats (sorry, we couldn't help it), former MPs, diplomats and political hacks otherwise known as the House of Lords has voted to put an end to the Conservative's EU Referendum Bill. David Cameron will most likely now try to use the so-called Parliament Act. This is a rarely used power which allows the House of Commons to effectively over-rule the House of Lords. So this will be a showdown.

We looked at how this could work before. This is the likely sequence of events from here.

Firstly, the Parliament Act requires that the Bill should be rejected twice by the Lords in consecutive sessions of Parliament. Running out of time counts as rejection but the Bill needs to be presented in exactly the same form in the next session of Parliament. This will require the same rigmarole as the first time around - a new Conservative backbench MP taking up the Bill in backbench time, and further votes which will require another abstention by the majority of Labour MPs.

So will there be enough time before the election to actual use the Parliament Act? The biggest risk for the Tories is that the Peers who oppose the Bill continue to debate it until the end of the next session, meaning that Cameron would never get the chance to use the Parliamentary Act. The second session will start in May. That will give the Conservatives a year to get it through the Commons and into the Lords before the election. If it is still in the Lords when the general election is called in May 2015, it could potentially be "Parliament Acted" as one of Parliament's last acts before it is dissolved for the election.

Could John Bercow MP - the Common's speaker - have a role? The legislation states that a certificate is required on the Bill to state the parliament Act has been complied with. It states a "certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that the provisions of this section have been duly complied with" is needed. It would be highly controversial for him not to comply but stranger things have happened.

So it is just possible to get this through before the election, even if the Lords try to talk it out. This will give the Conservative's a symbolic victory and a political advantage but will not bring a referendum on its own. That will require Cameron to win an election.

This has been a tricky Europe week for David Cameron

Is the EU Referendum Bill dead?

The EU referendum Bill - pushed forward by Tory backbenchers aiming to legislate now for an EU referendum to be held in next Parliament (post-2015) - passed through the Commons with flying colours but is now stuck in the House of Lords.

Labour and Lib Dem Peers in the Lords have just managed to pass two amendments. These amendments are now sent back to the Commons which will have to decide whether to accept or reject them.

Big question now is whether this Bill will run out of the time, and therefore die an early death. This happens if the 2013-2014 Parliament session runs out before the Bill is passed (in the UK system, all proposals are chopped by the end of a parliamentary session). This ends at the end of April.

The short answer is that's we don't know yet, but it'll go down to the wire.

Parliament could attempt a round of Parliamentary Ping Pong, or "Wiff Waff" as Boris Johnson called it, as the amendments are returned to the Commons to be debated - probably on Friday the 28 February. If their Lordships amendments are reversed by MPs they will be ponged back just in time for the end of the session - at the end of April.

But does the Commons actually need to pong them back or could they simply accept it all in order to speed the Bill on its way? Well, the first amendment is about the actual referendum question:

"Do you think that the UK should be a member of the EU?"

Which the Peers want to change to:

"Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"

Well, opinions are divided as to whether the question will make any difference on the outcome - something we looked at here. But the Electoral Commission felt that some Britons were blissfully unaware the UK was in the EU at all, hence their suggested change. The second amendment, to Commission an impact assessment on the consequences of an EU exit, seems harmless enough but will not really settle anything as any impact assesment will become the subject of the dispute. In any event legislation is not required. So perhaps the Commons could accept this one aswell?

Or would it be better to reject the amendments and use the Parliament Act in the next session as we looked at here?

Regardless, this is a setback to the Conservatives, who will take comfort from the political advantage to be made from telling the public that - in their view - Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband do not trust them.

We're all EU reformers now?

Thumbs up to EU Reform but is he for real?

Lord Mandelson on the BBC's Today programme earler stated that:

I think that reform and change in Europe is what is wanted by the British public and I think that is needed in Europe...

 He went on to argue that:

The Government should this year go quietly patiently but persistently setting out its reform agenda in the rest of Europe winning those arguments and gaining allies.

Quite... But you would be right to be cynical, given his history, as to why he is saying this now on the day the EU Referendum Bill is being debated in the Lords (Lord M was once in favour but is now against). On the referendum, he was a bit slippery, to say the least. 

But still, this is surely a sign of the changing mood. Even Lord Mandelson is wary of being seen as backing the status quo and sees the need to champion EU 'reform'. We're very much looking forward to hear what, exactly, he means by "reform"...

Can David Cameron 'go nuclear' and use the Parliament Act?

Is David Cameron preparing to go nuclear?

The Telegraph reported yesterday that David Cameron has told his MPs that he will use the Parliament Act to force through James Wharton's Private members Bill for an EU Referendum? Inevitably described as his 'nuclear option'.

Assuming their Lordships reject the EU referendum, which given the number of former Commission employees, diplomats, MEPs and quangocrats in their noble ranks must be a possibility, how will this work?

Firstly, the Parliament Act, as amended in 1949, means that a Bill that has been rejected twice in consecutive sessions of Parliament by the Lords, should be presented to Her Majesty for approval whose official will by convention say or attach the wording "Le Reyne Le Veult" - to express, in Norman French, that the Queen will's it  - in this case a referendum on EU membership.

Reading the legislation there are a few pitfalls. The Bill needs to be presented in exactly the same form in the next session of Parliament. This will require the same rigmarole as this time, a new Conservative backbench MP taking up the Bill in backbench time, and further votes which will require another abstention by the majority of Labour MPs.

Once that is done two remaining questions remain. Firstly, can you Parliament Act a private members Bill? And if so does the Coalition Government, or a Government Minister need to assent? Secondly, can the Conservatives force it through before the 2015 General election?

Can you Parliament Act a private member's Bill?
Under the legislation the Act refers to 'Public Bills' and does not specify they have to be 'Government' Bills. It also states a Bill "shall, on its rejection for the second time by the House of Lords.. be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent." So no need for Government approval.

Will there be enough time?
The Current session runs until May when the Bill's second session will start. That will give the Conservatives a year to get it through the Commons and into the Lords before the election. If it is still in the Lords when the general election is called in May 2015, it could be Parliament Acted as one of Parliament's last acts before it is dissolved for the election.

What if the Lords run out of time but do not reject it?
The Current session of Parliament runs until May, so it is possible the Lords will still be discussing it at that point. In this case the Bill is treated as rejected (s.2(3)). The same would apply if it is still in Parliament in 2015.

Could John Bercow MP - the Common's speaker - have a role?
The legislation states that a certificate is required on the Bill to state the parliament Act has been complied with. It states a "certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that the provisions of this section have been duly complied with" is needed. It would be highly controversial for him not to comply but...

Lastly, if all these things happen what will it actually mean? As we have said before, it will certainly be symbolic and will have obvious political benefits for the Conservatives, but could it bind a potential Labour Government? Well probably not, and in any event even if it becomes law it would require further votes after the election. So important and symbolic yes but if this Bill becomes an Act it will not make a referendum a certainty.


What's in a question?

Coming to a polling station near you?

The UK's Electoral Commission, in response to the onward march of James Wharton MP's EU Referendum Bill, has been opining on how to ask the UK population if it wants to remain in the EU. .

James Wharton MP's original:

'Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?' (Yes/No)

However, Electoral Commission would like to tweak this to:

1. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?'
   (Yes/No)Or, the one that it seems to favour:
2. 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'
   (‘Remain a member of the European Union’ / ‘Leave the European Union’)

So what is the difference? Well not much but the Electoral Commission feels there is a need to emphasise that the UK already is a member of the EU. Apparently, the EC worries that there are some people in the UK not realising that the country already is a member of the EU - the original question might therefore be interpreted as one about whether the UK should join. Something we doubt, particularly after a long referendum campaign, anyone could remain in the dark on. Still perhaps no harm in following their advice?

Incidentally, the question is for next years' Scottish referendum  which the Electoral Commission seems to be happy with, reads:

"Should Scotland be an independent country?" (Yes/NO)

We doubt there are any Scots not aware that Scotland is a member of the UK, but for consistency, perhaps the EC could have recommended the following:

• 'Should Scotland remain a member of the United Kingdom (and EU) or leave the United Kingdom (and EU)?'
  (‘Remain a member of the UK and EU’ / ‘Leave the UK and EU’)

There are many ways to ask for the exit...

EU Referendum: Now a question of when not if?

Today’s Commons debate on whether to hold an EU referendum in 2017 – brought forward by James Wharton MP through a so-called private members bill - was interesting as much for what was said as for what was not.

As expected, Conservative MPs came out in droves to proclaim their commitment to an in/out referendum if re-elected. Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander criticised 2017 as “an arbitrary date”, although he yet again appeared not to categorically rule out an EU referendum under a Labour government. So that door is still left ajar. He also reiterated Labour’s commitment to EU reform, proving how entrenched this concept now is across the political spectrum.

Interventions during the debate showed that within the Labour Party there is now a spectrum of opinion on the EU referendum, although in fairness Labour and Lib Dem participation was limited (see picture). There are those against a referendum because of a long held attachment to the EU; those like Keith Vaz MP who want the UK to remain an EU member but also want a referendum to strengthen democratic legitimacy; and those, like Kate Hoey or Dennis Skinner who have long been opposed to the EU and want the UK to leave altogether. In addition, there are many on the Labour benches who see the entire issue as a valuable party-political stick with which to beat the Conservatives.

Labour has so far managed to avoid a divisive public debate on the issue but with the Conservatives – who now appear relatively united – having put them on the spot, a familiar question reappears: if polls are close leading up to the 2015 general election, will Labour gamble on being seen as the ‘pro-status quo anti-referendum party’ – or will it pull the trigger?

Clearly, there are powerful voices within the Labour party who are feeling increasingly worried about such a prospect. So what will the endgame look like? Several different scenarios are emerging:

Tory majority: If the Conservatives win the next election outright it is now inconceivable they would avoid a referendum.

Continuity of Tory-Lib Dem coalition: Lib Dems are unlikely to promise a referendum in 2017 so the question would then become whether David Cameron insists on a referendum as a the price for a renewal of the Coalition. Cameron has been less than clear on this point. He has said “if I am Prime Minister” there will be a referendum, but the official write up says “if a Conservative Government is elected in 2015, they would... hold an in-out referendum to let the British public decide.” Would Nick Clegg block it (assuming he is even still the leader then).

Tory minority government: With a more stable economy both the Tories and Lib Dems could decide not to formally renew the coalition, with the former instead ruling as a minority government. Depending on the exact parliamentary arithmetic, a Tory referendum in 2017 could gain sufficient support from Labour and Lib Dem rebels and Northern Irish MPs.

No Labour pledge followed by a Labour victory: Only chance for a referendum would be if the “referendum lock” is triggered as part of an EU treaty change that transfers powers from the UK to Brussels – Labour has pledged to keep the lock in place. Perhaps they can somehow elevate that into an In/out referendum, and get around the pickle they’re in that way (there’s talk about this in Labour circles).

No Labour pledge followed by a Lib-Lab coalition: As previous scenario – both Labour and Lib Dems are in favour of the referendum lock.

Labour pledge followed by Labour majority: Question would then be on what terms (a straight In/Out vote or something else) and when (immediately after the election or mid-term). 

Labour pledge followed by a Lib-Lab coalition: That would depend on the Lib Dems and whether Labour sees it as a deal breaker. It’s easier to Labour ditching the referendum pledge in coalition negotiations than the Tories. However, a Lib-Lab Coalition Government might end up with a referendum anyway due to cross-party backbench cooperation by Labour and Conservative MPs.

Labour throws back the ball in Tories’ court: As has been floated, Labour could seek to amend James Wharton’s bill, to suggest a referendum before 2017 – some have floated 2014, at the same time as the European elections. This would be extremely awkward for Tory MPs, many of whom would feel obliged to vote for such an amendment so as not to be seen as anti-referendum. The Tories are also vulnerable to criticism that 2014 is no less of an arbitrary date than is 2017 (are we confident that all the changes in Europe and in the UK-EU relationship will have taken place by 2017 so the British public would have the choice of two clear alternatives?)

Regardless, there was a feeling when listening to today’s debate that a referendum on Europe is now not a matter of if – but when. Disappointingly, the debate largely ducked a question just as fundamental as the referendum debate itself: whoever wins the next election will have a series of European challenges in its intray: a Europe that desperately needs reform, a changing Eurozone with bailout programs running out, a series of pending EU court cases, potential treaty changes and more.

These challenges transcend party politics.

EU referendum: So who's cup of tea will it be?