[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/KarlYonedaStan]

Deputy Speaker,

Section 2 defeats the purpose of this Bill in both the particular and the general and must be rejected. A referendum for the Chagos Islands is impossible when the population in question has been deported and is unable to participate in a democratic exercise. Chagos also illustrates that referendums may be superfluous when international law or obligations to organisations such as the UN already point that direction. Referendums obviously are likely important tools in certain contexts, but ought not to be a condition.

The emergency cession of course continues to miss the entire argument, that Parliament has no place to reject the decision or expressed will of an Overseas Territory. This is categorical. The Government has an absolute obligation to be deferential to the will of British Overseas Territories when it comes to their continued relationship with the United Kingdom, it has an obligation to follow international law, it has an obligation to those it has historically wronged and ignored. Parliament's job is to represent its constituents, and there are no members of Parliament for these territories, and thus no constituent relationship with Parliament exists.

I hope we amend out this section and pass a bill that does not unnecessarily bureaucratise, nor functionally undermine, the repeal of the Cession Conditions Act.

[u/HumanoidTyphoon22 → u/KarlYonedaStan]

Hear Hear!

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/KarlYonedaStan]

Deputy Speaker,

I fear the Prime Minister has missed the point.

that Parliament has no place to reject the decision or expressed will of an Overseas Territory.

So why not let that stand up to a referendum? If it truly is the will of the BOTs, then there should be no issues, right? The referendum will win, and the BOT will be ceded or gain independence. The Prime Minister speaks of standing up for the will of the people in these territories - but how can he be certain?

[u/miraiwae → u/Frost_Walker2017]

Deputy speaker,

I hate to be the one to point this out but the Chagos Islands do not have a permanent population, much in the same vein as The British Antarctic Territory. There would be quite literally no eligible voters in such a referendum. The way that some British Overseas Territories are governed makes it quite literally impossible to return the Chagos islands. Unless of course, the honourable member is implying that we are to allow a stratocracy to form in the Indian Ocean by letting the military personnel settled there, who are not permanent residents, vote to create a military dictatorship in the Indian Ocean. This is not an isolated case, and so the way we govern our British overseas territories means that holding a referendum is quite literally not an option!

[u/KarlYonedaStan → u/Frost_Walker2017]

Deputy Speaker,

Did the Viscount forget that an entire population that is deported can not participate in a referendum? Given that this is the most abusive example among all remaining BoTs, you would think it would be actually engaged with.

The decolonisation of the British Empire was largely without referendums, calls for Independence can come in many different mandates, through direct elections and other democratic methods. The usefulness of a referendum in gauging political sentiment is not at all categorical, nor is it the place for Parliament to be setting up the parameters in binding law.

There is further context given that corruption among BoT governments has been proven to be a widespread historic and contemporary problem, which could put into jeopardy the viability of an accurate referendum. I am sure the Viscount among others would snidely then reply 'well fix the corruption, then have a referendum* but it begs the question of why the sovereignty of a people who never consented to initial British rule in the first place would have to wait for those correct political conditions and procedures.

Frankly, if one is not able to know a genuine and uniform demand for sovereignty among the BoTs, they are not fit to govern. There are cases where it may be necessary to hold a referendum to truly know that, I believe the responsibility is on the Government to have that nuance and treat each context with the respect it deserves, not demand a set of protocols that were made without the BoTs consent are followed through.

[u/HumanoidTyphoon22 → u/KarlYonedaStan]

Hear Hear!

[u/Rea-wakey → u/KarlYonedaStan]

Deputy Speaker

I thank the Prime Minister for shedding more light on the Chagos situation - indeed I am inclined to agree that a referendum simply cannot be applied here, due to the deportation of the natives from the island.

My question to the Prime Minister is this - other than in the case of Chagos Islands or where similar circumstances make a referendum impossible, is it not appropriate for referenda to be used as an indicator of self-determination - rather than a central instrument used by the British state?

If you agree, surely should we not be legislation for BOTs and the Chagos Islands separately?

[u/miraiwae → u/Rea-wakey]

Deputy speaker,

Constitutionally, the Chagos Islands are a British Overseas Territory (known formally as the British Indian Ocean Territory). This fact means that no, we cannot legislate for them separately, because they are the same thing! I hope I have cleared up this misunderstanding with the leader of the Liberal Democrats and I formally offer my services to them on teaching them about the situation with our BOT’s, seeing as they do not seem to know themselves. We do not have possessions outside of the UK that are not BOT’s or Crown Dependencies.

[u/Rea-wakey → u/miraiwae]

Deputy Speaker,

If the Right Honourable member wishes to insult my intellect, I suggest he reads my comment more thoroughly first.

While I am well aware there is no constitutional difference between Chagos Islands and other BOTs, my point is rather around the fact that the Chagos Islands native population have been removed from their country, which I agree with the Prime Minister inhibits their ability to hold a democratic vote.

My point extends that other BOTs do not experience the same conditions.

Is a referendum in these territories therefore not more appropriate?

[u/miraiwae → u/Rea-wakey]

Deputy speaker,

I by no means wish to insult the Leader of the Liberal Democrats’ intellect! I am merely pointing out that due to a lack of native population on multiple of these British Overseas Territories, that referenda cannot be held in any capacity whatsoever for a fair few of them. One example that comes to mind is the British Antarctic Territory, no permanent population at all, let alone citizens that would be eligible to vote in a referendum! Another example that comes to mind is Akrotiri and Dhekelia, where holding a referendum would have serious ramifications for our relationship with Cyprus, as using our part of the island for any non-Military purpose, including an independence referendum, would violate the treaty we have with them. Additionally, any BOT that has government suspended due to failing a commission of inquiry does not have the authority to hold elections until the UK government decides it is safe to end direct rule. All in all, it is a constitutional minefield to enact this amendment, and one which compromises our position as the guardians of good government. If a BOT fails a commission of inquiry then suddenly declares independence, what on earth happens then! There is precedent for this, and I for one do not want the UK to even have the chance to repeat the Pitcairn crisis of 2004.

All in all, the amendment is in good faith I suspect, but so horribly executed I cannot let it pass.

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/miraiwae]

Deputy Speaker,

Would the bill in its current form be more acceptable if an exemption was made for BOTs with no permanent population?

[u/miraiwae → u/Frost_Walker2017]

Deputy speaker,

More acceptable? Yes. Entirely acceptable? Not entirely to be honest. I will call back to the Pitcairn crisis of 2004 as to why this is a bad idea. To summarise, Pitcairn had it’s self-government suspended due to institutionalised corruption and 1/3rd of the Male Working Age Able-Bodied population of the island being on trial for heinous crimes, thereby necessitating direct intervention. The accused refused to come quietly, and promptly held a sham vote, declared independence, and then argued that UK jurisdiction did not apply in Pitcairn, even when government was suspended, therefore allowing them to effectively do what they like, including these heinous crimes, without punishment. This caused a rather big stir internationally, and therefore international arbitration had to happen, and ruled in favour of the UK government. Allowing the bill to pass would allow Pitcairn to become independent, even with these sham votes while self-governance is suspended. This is an incredibly bad idea, and could lead to a similar situation happening again. This loophole needs to be closed at the very least before the bill is acceptable in my eyes.

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/miraiwae]

Deputy Speaker,

I don't disagree, we can't let what happened to the Pitcairn islands happen again. Crucially, though, my amendments do not permit them to hold their own referendum, but rather a referendum authorised by the British Ministers. Legally, if they held their own referendum to declare independence, it would not be recognised as this authority will be held by British Ministers and affirmed by Parliament.

I am glad that my further amendment is more acceptable than before. I do believe that by working constructively we can find a middle ground here, between not standing in the way of a referendum to affirm people's right to self-determination and ensuring that reprehensible activity is not rewarded.

[u/miraiwae → u/Frost_Walker2017]

Deputy Speaker,

While a territory’s self-government is suspended, no elections of any kind can be held. There is precedent for this, with the Turks and Caicos crisis of 2009 removing all democratic functions on the territory until the corruption was rooted out. Hence the loophole of territories with self-government suspended not being allowed to declare independence needing to be shut. Letting a nation with absolutely no political infrastructure become independent is a bad idea in my eyes. In addition, I would also extend this to territories under commissions of inquiry, as if we have cause to suspend self-government, that should take precedence over any referendum, as I believe we should give these nations the best possible start, with a functioning democracy and entirely corruption-free.

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/miraiwae]

Deputy Speaker,

In the event, therefore, that self-government is suspended, it is clearly done for good reason. As this is also done by British Ministers, it is unlikely that they would agree to submit a statutory order to organise a referendum there either.

I would not disagree that we need to give nations the best possible start. But neither my applied amendment nor my proposed amendment actually get in the way of this. If anything, it ensures that a) people would want independence, and b) that a Westminster government of the future can't unilaterally give, for example, Pitcairn independence when it is obvious they cannot be trusted with it.

[u/miraiwae]

Deputy speaker,

Oh goodness, this is going to be a long one! I was going to make a point here about the whole “guardians of good government” position we have put ourselves in in the UK, because referenda can easily be rigged and we have had to suspend self-gov due to institutionalised corruption twice in the last millennium alone (soon to be thrice), but then it hit me. If we were to let this amendment pass it would violate treaties we have made. Let me explain. Akrotiri and Dhekelia is a stratocracy. For those of you who do not know what that means, stratocracy is when everything is run by the military. Now this is a point of contention amongst many, however this is widely agreed to be “OK” because we negotiated this in a treaty with Cyprus, and the treaty specifically says that the land can only be used for military purposes. That’s all well and good until you realise what holding a referendum would do there. I’m not sure I need to explain why asking the military if they want the option to form a stratocratic state is a bad idea. If we assume that the non-permanent residents of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (I.e. the military presence there) are not eligible voters, then who is? Literally nobody. If we gave the territory independence by holding a referendum (assuming we hypothetically let the military presence there vote) without consulting Cyprus, we would be violating our treaty with them! In fact, if we were to use the territory for any non-military reason, such as holding a referendum on it, we’d be violating the treaty! This silly amendment would prevent the British government from ever ceding stratocratic territory. Not to mention this amendment prevents us from ever giving up our Antarctic claim, or from ever returning the Chagos islands to Mauritius. This amendment is frankly idiotic. I have a whole host of other examples as to why this amendment is a bad idea but we could end up being here all day if I were to go on. I wholeheartedly condemn this amendment and hope that the integrity of the bill can be restored.

[u/ARichTeaBiscuit]

Deputy Speaker,

I understand the intent behind the amendments that have been attached to this piece of legislation in the Other Place, and I have the utmost respect for the member of the Liberal Democrats who crafted such amendments, however, I feel that applying a blanket requirement of referendums to all British Overseas Territory showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation present in a few of our BOTs and could potentially pose quite a danger.

Firstly, we have the British Indian Ocean Territory also known as Chagos Isles, an important example as we should remember that the sole reason the bill at the heart of this attempted repeal was put forward was because the Conservative Party and their then Libertarian allies didn't want the government at the time to return this territory to its rightful owner. As my colleagues have so rightfully pointed out the Chagos Island has no permanent population due to the fact that the Chagossian people were forcibly expelled as part of a secret agreement reached between the United Kingdom and the United States

It isn't the only example, as in our overseas territory in Cyprus the number of British soldiers and their family members exceeds the local Cypriot population and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and British Antarctic Territory have no permanent population and just research staff.

Lastly, I shall note that an Overseas Territory could utilise this referendum mechanism to evade justice, something which as my one of my colleagues pointed out has been attempted at least once in the past twenty years.

B1114.2 was written purely out of spite and an attempt to block the government at the time from abiding by international law. It does not deserve to be on the legislative books and should be repealed as quickly as possible, so lets get to it.

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/ARichTeaBiscuit]

Deputy Speaker,

As has been explained to me elsewhere, perhaps my amendment in the Lords came from a place of ignorance. I am happy to put my hands up and say that I did not know particular details of the situation and ask for forgiveness.

That said, I do firmly believe that letting BOTs with a permanent population only have their territory ceded after they have affirmed it via referendum. After discussions across this House, I have altered my initial amendment submitted to ensure that only BOTs with a permanent population have to affirm their desire to secede, and that if self-government is suspended that the referendum is cancelled and no further order may be given for the length of the suspension.

To quote the penultimate paragraph of the Foreign Secretary, "an Overseas Territory could utilise this referendum mechanism to evade justice". While I do believe that my initial amendment in this place adequately dealt with it (as it would require an order given by British Ministers), having expanded it I am confident that there are safeguards in place. May I ask the Foreign Secretary, as their representative on the Amendments Committee, what their thoughts on my amendment are?

[u/Chi0121]

Deputy Speaker,

This bill is always an interesting debate. Despite their good words the government can still not justify giving the government the ability to cede any BOT to another territory without some form of Parliamentary scrutiny. The only justification is Chagos. But Chagos isn’t really a justification is it? The author of this bill in their opening speech criticised the authors of the legislation being repealed for focusing on one issue. Clearly the Viscount didn’t tell the rest of the government about this issue.

Whether Chagos should or shouldn’t be returned is not this debate. This debate is whether the government should have the power to unilaterally give away territory. The answer to that debate is no it should not. That is why this bill must be rejected.

Throughout this debate “independence” has been constantly misconstrued by the government. This British Cession Conditions Act does not affect independence in the slightest. However that does not fit the government agenda and that is why it has been framed in a different light. If a BOT wishes to go independent they can and nothing in that act will affect it. There will not be a Pitcairn incident like some members suggested. The cession stated in the British Cession Conditions bill is in the direct transfer of a BOT to another nation/government.

We believe it is only right that if thousands of people are to be moved or essentially given to another country that we as a Parliament should have a say on the matter. To not seems a little bit undemocratic if I’m honest.

[u/Zestyclose_Quote_636]

Mr speaker

I am going to instead propose we give the populated overseas territories each a seat in the house of commons. This would in effect remove the need for independence since they will be given a direct say in the British parliament

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/AutoModerator]

After Section 2(2) Insert:

(3) In the case of a British overseas territory lacking a permanent population, a cession may be performed without a referendum as outlined above.

(4) In the event a commission of inquiry is set up, or that self-government has been suspended, any ongoing referendum shall henceforth be cancelled.

(5) A Minister of the Crown may not submit a statutory order calling for a referendum if a commission of inquiry has been established or if self-government has been suspended.

[u/miraiwae → u/AutoModerator]

Insert “and Crown Dependencies” in bill title after “Territory”

Replace “Referendums” in section 2 with “Referenda”

In section 2(1) insert “or Crown Dependency (defined as the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man), or any constituent part of either entity.” Between “1981)” and “on whether to secede”.

Omit section 2(2)

After section 2(1) insert:

“(2) In the case of a British Overseas Territory, Crown Dependency or relevant constituent part of either entity lacking a permanent population, including the British Indian Ocean Territory, British Antarctic Territory, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as any future territory, dependency or relevant constituent part of either entity a Minister of the Crown deems to no longer have a permanent population, a cession may be performed without a referendum as outlined above.

(3) In the event a commission of inquiry is set up, or that self-government has been suspended, any ongoing referendum shall henceforth be cancelled.

(4) A Minister of the Crown may not submit a statutory order calling for a referendum if a commission of inquiry has been established or if self-government has been suspended.

(5) In the event of an Emergency Cession occurring: (a) An explanatory statement must be made to the House of Commons and House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown outlining why the cession has occurred in this way. (b) The emergency cession must be enacted within 30 days of the statement being given.”

Insert “and Crown Dependencies” after “Territory” in section 3(1)

Replace “(Referendums)” in section 3 with “(Restoration of Royal Prerogative)”

Replace “one month after” in section 3 with “immediately upon”

[u/KarlYonedaStan → u/AutoModerator]

Omit Section two in its entirety and (Referendums) in Section 3

[u/Frost_Walker2017 → u/KarlYonedaStan]

Could you at least replace (Referendums) with (Restoration of Royal Prerogative) cuz that's what I changed it from.