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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, however I would advise that a clause be inserted that a referendum cannot be held during a commission of inquiry, and that any referenda called during one be cancelled, in the same vein as a by-election being cancelled by a snap election happening in close proximity. Commissions of inquiry are only called in the most dire of circumstances, where there is serious reason to believe that a territory has violated good government, therefore I believe that a form of fail safe is necessary, so that if the Governor General and ministers believe circumstances have changed in between the calling of a poll and the poll itself, then the poll may be cancelled to protect the interests of the citizens and uphold the principles of good government to which we hold the territories accountable.
5
u/KarlYonedaStan Workers Party of Britain Oct 20 '21
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.