23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.
I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).
I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.
Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.
There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.
I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.
The way I look at it is this: Brexit was a constitutional issue that impacted everyone in our country, and therefore a supermajority would have been sensible.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, the Assisted Dying bill will only apply to a very small number of people, and while I see the symbolic importance, I think once the emotion has gone out of the issue, it will not be looked back on as a major milestone, nor one that most people will encounter. So I’m fine with it processing as other laws do. That one vote is only a small part of the whole legislative and judicial system, and I imagine there will be many other challenges and checks, balances etc