Parliament and Brexit: what do the public think?

Posted on March 30, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

Almost four years have passed since the 2016 EU referendum delivered a mandate for Brexit. However, as John Curtice explains in the latest extract from our joint report on Parliament and Brexit, the views of the public on the role of referendums in the Brexit process is heavily influenced by their views on whether Britain should leave the European Union or remain a member.

Though they have been used various times on constitutional matters in the UK, referendums are often thought to challenge traditional notions of representative parliamentary democracy. In the UK’s version of such a democracy, MPs are sent to Westminster to deliberate and exercise their judgement on their constituents’ behalf. Referendums seemingly usurp this traditional role, in an attempt to ascertain ‘the will of the people’.

Nonetheless, survey research has long suggested that referendums are popular with voters – as indeed was the June 2016 EU referendum. A fortnight beforehand, 52% told YouGov that David Cameron was right to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, and only 32% said he was wrong. On the very eve of polling, Ipsos MORI reported that 66% of voters felt the Prime Minister was right to hold a ballot, while only 24% reckoned he was wrong.

Yet, underneath the surface there were already important differences of opinion. As the first chart shows, Leave and Remain backers had rather different views. According to YouGov, 83% of Leave supporters supported Cameron’s decision, and only 9% thought it wrong. In contrast, 60% of likely Remain voters disliked the decision and only 26% approved. Of course, in calling the referendum Cameron had opened up the possibility that the UK might indeed leave the EU, a prospect that Leave voters were more likely to
embrace. Continue reading →

Enacting the manifesto? Labour’s pledges and the reality of a hung parliament

Posted on December 11, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Media coverage in this election has been dominated by the Conservatives and Labour, and their competing policy plans. But a key difference between the parties is that, while a Conservative majority government is clearly possible based on the polls, a Labour majority government is not. Hence a Labour-led government would need to negotiate its policy with other parties, which would soften its stance. Robert Hazell and Meg Russell reflect on the lack of coverage of these questions, and what a Labour-led government would actually look like – in terms of personalities, policies and style.

Consistent opinion poll evidence during the general election campaign suggests that there are two possible outcomes: a majority Conservative government led by Boris Johnson, or a hung parliament. In the event of the latter, Johnson might still remain Prime Minister, but he has few allies – even having alienated Northern Ireland’s DUP. So a hung parliament might well result in a government led by Labour, even if the Conservatives are the largest party. But one thing is clear: nobody is really expecting a Labour majority government.

Consequently, particularly as the polls have failed to shift into majority Labour government territory during the campaign, it is strange that so little attention has been given to the question of what a Labour-led government might actually deliver in policy terms. To navigate policy through a hung parliament this would need to be accepted by other parties. In some areas – notably the commitment to a referendum on Brexit – the parties agree; but in other areas there may be less agreement. So whilst significant attention has been paid to the radicalism of Labour’s manifesto, a hung parliament – which might lead to a minority Labour government, or less likely (given statements from the Liberal Democrats and SNP) a formal coalition – would inevitably result in some dilution. As noted in the Constitution Unit’s 2009 report on minority government, hung parliaments ‘[entail] a greater degree of compromise and concession than leaders of governments at Westminster are used to’.

Thus focus on Labour’s economic policy – such as its tax or nationalisation plans – might usefully have been tempered by journalists asking questions of the other parties about the extent to which they would accept such plans, or how they might be softened as a result of negotiation. In a country where hung parliaments are more frequent, debate about the likely compromises between parties would be far more upfront during the campaign. Instead, the UK’s legacy of single-party majority government (notwithstanding the fact that this situation has applied for just two of the last nine years) has led to parties and journalists alike avoiding such questions. This, in turn, risks leaving the public ill-informed about the real prospects post-election. Continue reading →

The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament

Posted on December 1, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

A further referendum on Brexit is central to many parties’ general election pledges. Today, the Constitution Unit launches a new report examining how such a vote might come about and what form it might take. This updates previous work conducted last year. In this post, adapted from the report’s final chapter, Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Lisa James and Jess Sargeant sum up the key conclusions. They find that, though it would not be without difficulties, a vote on Johnson’s deal may be the quickest option and the one most likely to command public legitimacy.

The Constitution Unit’s latest report, The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament, is published today. It significantly updates our previous analysis of the mechanics of a further Brexit referendum, exploring the circumstances that might lead to a further referendum on Brexit, and the form that such a referendum might take. The report does not advocate for or against a referendum, or assess the broader impact that such a vote might have. Rather, it explores the practical implications of the different options: in terms of the processes to bring a referendum about, the standards that it should meet, the options for reforming regulation, and, crucially, the timetable.

The minimum timetable from the point at which parliament decides in principle to hold a referendum to the date on which that referendum is held is roughly 22 weeks – or five months. Claims that organising a referendum would take a year or more are therefore overstated. However, very clearly, a decision to proceed with a referendum would require a further extension to the Article 50 period, which currently expires on 31 January 2020. And there are various factors that could put pressure on the minimum timetable, requiring a somewhat longer period of planning and preparation. This post (adapted from the report’s final chapter) considers how the pieces fit together, and what the overall timetable would likely be. The most obvious implication of this is for the length of Article 50 extension which a future government should request if seeking to hold a referendum.

The report considers the factors which could impinge on the timetable in detail, but in brief they include the following:

Is the referendum to be held on a pre-existing Brexit deal, or is time required (as Labour’s policy implies) for further renegotiation before proceeding to a referendum?
How contentious would the referendum bill be in parliament? This depends partly on the constellation of parties and groups in the House of Commons after the general election, and also on the content of the bill.
What form would the referendum question take? This may be one of the points of contention in parliament. We conclude that a three-option referendum is unlikely. Moving to such a format would slow down the process.
To what extent would campaign regulation be tightened up and updated via the referendum bill? Some updating is essential, and could be incorporated within the 22-week timetable. Other more major changes might be desirable, but in the interests of speed would likely be set aside.
Would the referendum result be made legally binding? This is not essential, but would be beneficial to provide clarity and certainty for voters. Preparing for a fully legally binding referendum would be likely to take slightly more time.

Continue reading →

Monitor 73 — On the brink: Brexit, the election and the state of British politics

Posted on November 13, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

The latest issue of Monitor, the Constitution Unit’s regular newsletter, was published today. Since the last issue, a new Prime Minister has been appointed, a new Speaker has been elected, a new Brexit deal has been negotiated, and a new parliament is imminent, as a general election campaign gets into gear this week. Meg Russell and Alan Renwick review the last four months of constitutional events in what is also the lead article from Monitor 73. The full edition can be found here.

With a general election scheduled for 12 December, the UK could be at a crucial turning point. Or, of course, not: with the polls uncertain, another hung parliament is a real possibility. The UK appeared closer to agreeing terms for leaving the EU in late October than previously, after Prime Minister Boris Johnson negotiated a revised deal and the House of Commons backed his Withdrawal Agreement Bill at second reading. But when MPs refused to accept Johnson’s demand that they rush the legislation through in three days, he refused to accord them more time, and demanded – as he had twice in September – a general election. A further extension of the Article 50 period – which Johnson had previously suggested he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ than allow – was agreed on 28 October – just three days before the 31 October deadline. That being in place, Labour reluctantly agreed to an election, which it is fighting on a pledge to hold another Brexit referendum. The Liberal Democrats want to revoke Article 50 in the unlikely event that they secure a majority, or otherwise hold a referendum.

In recent months much in British politics has already felt close to breaking point. While Theresa May fared badly in navigating parliament as the leader of a minority government (only in the final stages seeking agreement with other parties), Johnson seems actively to have sought confrontation with parliament. This is, to say the least, an unorthodox strategy in a system where the government depends on the Commons’ confidence to survive. It is the very reverse of what would normally be expected under a minority government. Such an approach lasted, at least briefly, due to MPs’ fears of triggering a vote of no-confidence – which might have delivered Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn to Downing Street, or indeed allowed Johnson to ‘crash’ the UK out of the EU on a ‘no deal’ basis. There were even suggestions that he would refuse to resign, and ‘dare’ the Queen to sack him (see page 15), if parliament sought to put an alternative prime minister in his place.

In his short time in office, Johnson has faced very limited parliamentary scrutiny, including just three sessions of Prime Minister’s Questions. He made and cancelled no fewer than three arrangements to appear before the Commons Liaison Committee, much to the frustration of its chair. Most controversially, of course, he sought to prorogue parliament for five weeks – an action ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court (see page 14). Despite the ruling, scrutiny was curtailed by the summer recess, the time lost due to this ‘prorogation that wasn’t’, plus a further short prorogation to facilitate a Queen’s Speech (described as a ‘sham’ by the Unit’s Robert Hazell, given Johnson’s evident desire for an election). The attempted prorogation, and loose talk about refusing to resign, have left many people alarmed that a constitution heavily dependent on convention has suddenly appeared fragile, when faced with players who show little regard for unwritten rules. Continue reading →

Five key questions about a further Brexit referendum

Posted on November 7, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Proposals for another Brexit referendum will be at the heart of the election campaign and it is therefore important that the viability of politicians’ plans are thoroughly tested. Drawing on recent research, Alan Renwick, Meg Russell and Lisa James here set out five key questions. They suggest that Labour’s plans for a referendum within six months are challenging, though not necessarily impossible. A poll which pitted Boris Johnson’s deal against Remain would be simpler and quicker, avoiding additional negotiation time. This would also have the advantage of enhancing the referendum’s legitimacy among Brexit supporters.

The parties are finalising their election manifestos, and several will propose a further referendum on Brexit. These policies will come under close scrutiny during the campaign. This post draws on and updates a detailed report published by the Constitution Unit last year. It sets out the possible routes to a further Brexit referendum, the key choices that would need to be made, and the possible consequences of those choices. It finds that a referendum between Boris Johnson’s deal and remaining in the EU would be both the simplest, and the quickest, option.

How would a referendum come about?

The major unknown – and unknowable – factor at this stage is the outcome of the general election. It is impossible to predict post-election parliamentary arithmetic with any confidence, but it will have a material effect on the probability and form of a referendum.

There are three main possibilities. The first is a Conservative majority, under which a referendum is very unlikely to take place. The second is a Conservative minority government, which might accept a confirmatory referendum as the price of passing its Withdrawal Agreement. The third is a Labour-led government: either a majority government, or a minority government supported by smaller pro-referendum parties. Under this scenario, the Labour leadership proposes to negotiate a new deal with the European Union, and to offer a referendum between their deal and Remain. Continue reading →

The Constitution Unit Blog

Tag Archives: Further referendum on Brexit

Parliament and Brexit: what do the public think?

Like this:

Enacting the manifesto? Labour’s pledges and the reality of a hung parliament

Like this:

The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit Revisited: Questions for the New Parliament

Like this:

Five key questions about a further Brexit referendum

Like this:

The Constitution Unit Blog

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: