 |
 |
A referendum on a United Ireland would also require prior approval for the proposal from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The requirement that 60% of the electorate would need to approve a United Ireland effectively guarantees that any referendum held at this point on the issue would not pass.
The Bill states:
Referendums criteria:
(1) A proposition to change constitutional or parliamentary arrangements that is the subject of a referendum in the United Kingdom is deemed to be disagreed to (notwithstanding the form in which the question appears on ballot papers) unless the following criteria are met.
(2) Before the referendum is held
(a) each House of Parliament passes a motion that the proposition be agreed to, and
(b) if in either House the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of those who vote.
(3) The number of those who vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than 55% of all those on the current electoral register.
(4) The number of those who vote in favour of the proposition is equal to or greater than 60% of those who vote in the referendum.
A referendum on Unity was not agreed as a precondition for the return of the political parties to Stormont this week.
The proposed bill, which would effectively block a border poll, would be a blow to Sinn Féin’s assertion that the revival of Stormont would be a “beach-head” to Irish unity.
 |
Matt Treacy is a writer and a former republican prisoner.
|
Matt,
ReplyDeleteno harm on flagging this up. Important to remember though that this is a private members Bill (originating in the House of Lords) and that a first reading is but a mere formality, a statement of a Private (Conservative) Member's intent to attempt to formulate legislation.
I suppose, its equally possible that some other old cogger in the Lords could move legislation proposing rescinding women's rights over control of their own bodies but like Lord Cormack he'd have to get it through four more stages in the Lords, then 5 stages in the 'other place' and then a final vote on amendments before going for 'Royal Assent'.
As I said, no harm in flagging this up but unless you're into shadow boxing there's not much call for putting the wraps and gloves on just yet.
an interesting and timely post by Matt but might it as Henry Joy suggests cause unnecessary alarm at this point in time? It is going to have serious consequences for the GFA and as Matt suggested to me there is the matter of Scotland to be considered.
DeleteAM,
Deletesurely the passing of such legislation would put the current establishment in a bit of a bind insofar as it would in a sense delegitimize the Brexit referendum?
With respect to Lord Cormack and Matt, I don't expect this kite to go fly for too long.
It’s like something that idiot Ken Maginnis would raise although it wasn’t him this time as he was too busy berating the security staff when he was refused entry due to him not having his access card with him…. It is a private members bill that carries no legal weight whatsoever and it is being brought forward by a Lord, can’t remember who it is, that is at pains with Boris Johnson over the Brexit referendum and it is therefore not likely to ever become legal while he is in Downing Street…..it requires a second reading and also for an MP to raise it in the House of Commons beforehand…..not ever likely to become legal as it has much wider implications for democracy and its processes and procedures…not just the GFA…..such as general elections which are in essence a form of referendum and also even the vote in the House of Lords to pass it! So he is raising a bill against his own rights…..a bit like MEP Diane Dodds vigorously campaigning to have herself made redundant!
ReplyDeleteBut you never know…..Leo and The Blueshirts may think…now there’s an idea!