Laws With Supermajorities

[jake-the-peg]

The plans for the new press regulator seem to involve a clause that mean that it can only be changed with a super majority of 2/3 in both Houses of Parliament.

Is there any precidence for this in UK law ?

Does anybody else feel a bit uncomfortable with this idea?

Personally whilst I like the idea of a strong regulator the idea that one parliament can impose it's will over a future one - even when that future parliament has a majoriy in favour of change - seems undemocratic to me.

(Posted this in law rather than News because I rather wanted to try to concentrate on the technical rather than political aspects of this)

[New Judge]

It’s already been done jake.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act 2010 states that Parliament cannot be dissolved unless two thirds of MPs support a vote of “No Confidence” in the Commons. Prior to that Act (which was introduced to prevent the Coalition breaking up) a simple majority was required.

I’ve highlighted this preposterous affront to what little is left of Parliamentary democracy before but have received no comments, so I assume either most people are happy about it or (far more likely) few people know about it.

Now another proposal is floated with a 2/3 majority requirement and I imagine it will not be too long before, by stealth, all votes in the Commons require such a majority.

[jake-the-peg]

Hmm

I can see the logic to the fixed term parliament bill requiring a supermajority - its very existance is to attempt to stop the cynical manipulation of the ebb and flow of public opinion being used by the governing party to snatch another term 'while the going is good'.

If a simple majority in parliament could disolve parliament the bill would be ineffective.

I think we may have to disagree as to whether that is a democratic advance or not - there are arguments on both sides.


Crucially though that is not using a supermajority to attempt to stop a future government ammending the bill


Constitutions in other countries often have to be ammended by supermajorities

This rather looks like constitution by the back door

[FredPuli43]

And what stops Parliament passing, by simple majorities, an Act repealing the Act,or the section of the Act, containing the two-thirds provision ? Nothing.

The same applies to any Act, including the one providing for fixed term Parliaments. Otherwise you could have the absurdity of one Parliament passing a bill containing a provision that it could never be repealed by the next,or any later, Parliament.

[New Judge]

Yes, fred, it is a long held convention (though I don’t think it’s written down anywhere) that no Parliament can bind its successors so, for the moment, I don’t see that eventuality arising.

I think we will have to agree to disagree, jake, because whilst the 2010 Act prevents the snatching of another term 'while the going is good', it also prevents MPs from bringing a poorly performing executive to account when the going is not so good and that, in my view, is far more important. For the bill to be most effective in its aim of preventing the dissolution of Parliament there should be no provision for it to be dissolved at all, but perhaps that is a step too far even for this government.

Whilst what fred says is quite true, and the Fixed Term Act can be repealed or amended, what I don’t quite understand is that you accept the need for a super-majority with the fixed term act and presumably are happy with it, but do not do likewise for the press regulator act. My own fear is that this is now the second lot of proposals that apparently needs a two third majority in Parliament and it will not be long before some bright spark (aka a "special advisor") suggests that since it works well enough with those two the principle may as well be extended to everything else Parliament does.

[bednobs]

i think you missd an option in your first post NJ - simply that most people don't care.

[New Judge]

Yes very true, bednobs.

Public apathy is manna from heaven for politicians particularly in matters like this. Of course if people genuinely are unconcerned about the democracy of Parliament being overridden or substantially altered then that in itself is the will of the people. But it does not help those of us who are concerned. People who are really unconcerned about politics might like to sit up and take notice of what is about to happen in Cyprus. No doubt successive governments there have benefitted from public apathy and have adopted policies which will now see many people having 10% of their cash stolen from them.

[FredPuli43]

But it's pure window-dressing, done to make people think that the rules for the press regulator cannot be changed on a whim. or otherwise, by a majority of one, or by one party in most cases; it will require a bigger majority than one party normally has. We all know that the whole set-up can be changed by a majority of one, simply by replacing the statute or charter.

[jake-the-peg]

The reason I accept the need for a supermajority in the fixed term act is that it doesn't affect a Parliament's successor where as I believe this does - or at least attempts to.

What I don't quite see is if Fred is right and nothing stops parliament repealing it by simple majority what is the purpose of putting it in in the first place?

[New Judge]

I don't know, jake. I just fear it is the top of a very slipperly slope down which the most slippery characters of all (politicians) will propel us. If a measure which requires two thirds majority does go against the government, what next? "Perhaps we'd better change it to 80%". And when that goes against them.....

[Peter Pedant]

yeah but the fly in the ointment over the rule that no parliament can bind its successors is...
the Human Rights Act, innit ?

Doesnt that say that all future acts of parliament will be compliant with it and not the other was round ? that is the new Act shall not have the effect of modifying the HRA

I thought all this was discussed at the time.

(a bit like retroactive legislation such as the War Crimes Act or the Henry VIII clauses where the GMC pleaded to be put under the diktat of the Minister)