Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Cope]

Well you know my thoughts on the Westminster system, i just hope people around the country now look and realize that their conception of democracy is based on the European PR + Constitution structure which most states in Europe have, and is totally at odds with how the Westminster system functions- where an unwritten constitution and FPTP structure designed to 'Make democracy safe for the world' (Baldwin), which is reliant on what are essentially gentleman's agreement and subject to easy change of precedent, gives you an executive in the form of a Government- who are prepared to run roughshod over democracy, and an opposition who in response also are prepared to do things that while under the Westminster system are 'democratic', are totally at odds with a 'representative democracy' as most British people imagine.

Thus we should (as i've continously whined i know) get behind Parliamentary reform that kicks out the Westminster system root and stem, creates a written constitution, legally enshrined checks and balances (currently the ones that did exist the executive have warn down since the original 1920s conception). I know however, this is still a pipe dream alas, as it would require a smaller party who support PR to get in- never happening. But we can hope. But i do agree, the system is a shambles and both sides have essentially destroyed (as they are actually allowed to alas) the last vestiges of the checks and balances that the Westminster system provided.



Next time a Westminster system advocate tries to argue how 'great' the so-called mother of all parliaments is (as some Brits like to do to Americans I've noticed), just remind them that it is indeed a mother... who hasn't updated her look in any realistic way since the reforms of the later 19th century and that the adversarial 'shouty' and school-boy cat-calling nature of the debate is embarrassing. They waste so much time, for so little actual effect. I mean we've just had PM Boris essentially cluck around and sulk, and several Labour and Tory MP's slag one anothers leaders off for no particular gain. I remember watching some Congress debates and being amazed that there was a distinct lack of cat-calling, it was downright refreshing.

No. The problem with Westminster isn't the system, it is the personnel. I don't want British politics to be dominated by an unelected, unaccountable, neo-liberal judiciary interpreting a codified constitution written by a band of unprincipled, Blairite charlatans.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

@ dante: I said this already 3 pages before.

This is true, it was well said indeed.

Oh yes, the difference is shocking. US Congress seems... civilized in comparison. But on the other hand watching a Congress session isn't anywhere near as entertaining as the Westminster Circus.

Ohh aye, that is one point in its favour, watching Parliament is very much the drama. By comparison if anyone regularly watches stuff like the Scottish Parliament, its far more respectful (mostly) and civilized- and is not based on the adversarial system- it shows...but also isn't as exciting indeed.

General comment:
So when Boris loses his GE bid, his sacking of the 21 Tory MP's now may come back to haunt him in a serious way.

If the opposition stays united, and needs Boris out, they can now really easily do it without a GE. (Huge 'if'). Ken Clarke is no longer a Tory, also they may support Corbyn as care-taker. But if Boris is not VoNC'ed (likely it would now definitely succeed), then Boris will struggle to reform a government. The opposition during those 14 days can potentially (And again big IF they stay united) get together with their 'Government of national unity' and essentially seize control for the time-limited government they agreed to.

This means Corbyn/Clarke/Opposition can seize control (anytime they all agree- which you know, isn't a sure-fire thing at all) without the need for a GE, hold a second referendum, get a deal of their choose, take over negotiations. The Government is really in a shakey position now (Literally self-inflicted- seriously someone needs to sack Cummings) and its options are running away.

EDIT:

No. The problem with Westminster isn't the system, is the personnel. I don't want British politics to be dominated by an unelected, unaccountable, neo-liberal judiciary interpreting a codified constitution written by a band of unprincipled, Blairite charlatans.

I agree with the broad sentiments as i think i've said before, particularly the influence of a neoliberal system, but i think you're looking too recently. All this comes consistently with the system. This was a problem prior to brexit, but was masked by Governments by and large gaining proper majorities. However both the Government and opposition have got us to this point. I would argue that May started the recent rot with Brexit through the secrecy, weighting of Committees and implementation of so-called 'Henry VIII' powers and the use of secondary legislation to push through a primary legislative agenda to avoid scrutiny. The Opposition then did Letwin (Its effects seen just today again) and some other things that i can't remember right now, but did summarize in a previous recent post but also further undermined things. Then Boris has been an absolute idiot frankly (or his advisers have been) and totally over-reached, undermining the system further, the opposition have contributed to that by Letwin take 2 today. The problem is the system, it cannot properly deal with competing mandates- the party system makes a mockery of the Westminster systems original intent anyway. There are no real checks and balances, they have been actively undermined by governments of both colours for decades. It is a shambles, it needs replacing.

The simple point about it being the personnel- what happens when for instance the next political blow-up happens- say we have a GE- somehow Boris scrapes a majority of May (Currently the best outcome poll wise when FPTP is accounted for). He pulls off a reheated deal- with a reworded backstop. However, the Tories are split then on the 'type' of Britain they want- some want the low-reg neoliberal 'Global Britain' that Javid envisages, others want a more national-based Britain. The majority is potentially gone again, the Opposition can cause merry hell, and the Government and opposition will once more be able to push, break and reshape the Westminster system to accommodate their visions.

Or if we want to crystal ball a bit- 10 years on, Corbyn has stepped down, Boris is gone. New MP's- return with a slight majority (Because the system is designed to work with a disinterested electorate- social media and increasing political engagement essentially allowed for 2015 and the Clegg effect that broke the broad church perspectives of the two parties) the opposition can now seize control based on precedent of the order paper, from the government, likewise the government can circumvent parliamentary scrutiny as it pleases. The only way to fix this is a total root and stem reform, a truly written constitution, a proper tripartite system of checks and balances that cannot be undermined as they have been currently over the successive decades, and proper democratic representation- with MP's as advocates, not leaders and certainly not protected by FPTP, or barring that you give up on referendums entirely for the Westminster system (technically that would also fix it by not providing competing mandates though integral issues in the long term remain regarding accountability and precedent) The stability state no longer works i suspect (and i think we may see this as time goes further on) in the modern world of digital information- too many divergent viewpoints that undermine 'broad church politics' by A) Those within the church majority becoming hostile to other views within that church due to the electoral groups that may attract and B) People turning towards 'small issue' parties and representatives who are innately hostile to 'broad church politics' as it would undermine their own support base and influence.

Essentially unless we can somehow always manage to have 'angelic, self-less personnel', which would be ideal, the system is fundamentally not fit for the modern era as things stand.

[Aexodus]

Oh yes the bbc parliament channel is quite a circus tonight. Dante's right about the slagging off for little effect, it's point scoring. That's it.

We need first proportional representation using the single transferable vote system, then we need a written constitution.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

...The Government is really in a shakey position now (Literally self-inflicted- seriously someone needs to sack Cummings) and its options are running away.

Isn't Cummings a big fan of our old Bismarck?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9045941.html

If so, he hasn't understood Bismarcks "Realpolitik" aka politics, which used intensively the actual realities.

All Cummings plots are nothing more than All in gambling.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

We need first proportional representation using the single transferable vote system, then we need a written constitution.

Very well said, i can't see there being much alternative if the UK wants to continue post-brexit with a 'real' democratic system that is based on proper legitimacy. Even those who prefer the current Westminster system, the Government and Opposition have now filled it with far too many holes, loop holes and precedents for it to ever really function properly again.

Isn't Cummings a big fan of our old Bismarck?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9045941.html

If so, he hasn't understood Bismarcks "Realpolitik" aka politics, which used intensively the actual realities.

All Cummings plots are nothing more than All in gambling.

I didn't actually know this, interesting and would explain a lot indeed. Frankly when it comes to Cummings though i'm sort of getting fed up that the media paint him as some kind of genius... the man was fired by Cameron when he made an absolute up of the school system alongside Gove. He literally has since then done nothing really exceptional. Worse from a Conservative perspective, he apparently might not even be a party member. Which means you have the key special adviser to the PM, who doesn't actually care about the party in government, the fact Boris has kept him around is mind boggling. I suspect before the end Cummings will get the boot, much as Timothy did under May.

EDIT:

Something i think most of us will find very interesting, and a rather unlikely turn...

https://www.ft.com/content/36a01cd8-...4-b5ded7a7fe3f

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ti-capitalist/

Yep, finance, investors and big business have warmed to the idea of a Corbyn government over Boris's Conservatives, as the whole current fiasco has seen the traditional market assumption of 'Tories good, Labour bad' turned very much on its head. This may have implications for a snap-GE if Boris attempts to use the line he tentatively tried out today when he extolled the Conservatives 'stable and sound' economic platform vs 'Corbyn Chaos' that he used a few days ago. It is interesting though just to compare this warming up to Blair's 1997 election. While Corbyn is essentially hostile under normal circumstances to these groups (10% of shares of companies with over 250 staff legally having to go to employees for instance is a big blow to investors and owners)m he seems to be starting to get the same kind of support that Blair, who ran on a platform so different to Corbyn's had to actively cultivate and work for. Strange times indeed.

[Copperknickers II]

An astonishing day in Westminster. The big new development is the successful vote in favour of the Bill which if passed through the legislature, would force Boris to choose between:

a - delaying Brexit until next January

b - holding an election before October 31st

This represents a massive defeat for the government and drastically decreases the chance of leaving with No Deal at the end of next month. However, it's far from a done deal. The Tory Lords are trying their best to filibuster the Bill, as well as to make damaging amendments in order to stop it. And there's even some suggestion that the 'accidentally passed' amendment which Dante pointed out earlier on was actually a ploy by the government to torpedo the Bill by incorporating a clause which would resurrect the possibility of Theresa May's deal. It's not clear yet whether this will change anything or not. And Boris still has some options left to try to gain the upper hand in other ways (ironically, the main one seems to be calling a vote of no confidence against himself!).


The two things we've learned from today, paradoxically, are:

1. The fixed-term parliament Act has absolutely crippled parliament's ability to deal with a crisis of this nature - the government has been condemned to the same fate as Prometheus of Greek myth: condemned to have his innards torn out by the Eagle of the opposition without a killing blow ever being delivered (some might say, just desserts for its opening of the Pandora's Box of Brexit).

2. But at the same time, it's become quite clear that there's basically no way now to avoid an election in the relatively near future, since both sides have so much political face to lose from not having one and so much to potentially gain from winning (despite the fact that there's a fairly big chance that both main parties will lose seats and it will just make the mess even worse... this Brexit rabbit hole is starting to look deeper than the deepest pit of Tartarus. Let's just hope the Furies restrict their anger to punishing the hubris of Boris Johnson, rather than letting Britain fall into civil unrest or No Deal Chaos.

[Daruwind]

No so surprising. May, Johnson....lost years for UK. Corbyn while maybe not fully friedly to those big companies is still lesser known evil. Bojo is upredictable pile of mess.

And about Cumming, if he is as garbage as you say Dante, that is exactly what Conservatives are showing last year or two. Total garbage.

[Cyclops]

...
'By convention' being the key part of that sentence...

Well yes sorta. AFAIK there is no written reference to the office of Prime Minister in the British constitution (it exists only by convention) so convention is a fairly weighty and significant element. That said, conventions can change. The mechanism for doing so is weird, and takes place in over-stuffed armchairs more than ballot boxes.

... Referenda are advisory and there's no legal obligation to enact their result. Not to mention that they are obviously superseded by subsequent referenda on the same issue.

Yes but the convention (which is essentially binding) is that they are heeded and acted upon, and once a question is addressed it is considered settled. It is not raised again until circumstances change significantly. There's no hard and fast time limit but its not three years, its more like decades. For example in Australia we had a referendum on the monarchy, which voted to retain the Queen as head of state. The question will not be addressed again until she dies, or in the unlikely event she is deposed in Britain.

This worming around on the question of the referendum seems to be constitution breaking. The question was asked, and the answer was given under the present conventions (as binding as law really).

In Europe there seems to be a tradition of repeat referenda until the ruling class gets what it wants (eg Denmark in 1992 and 1993 to raitfy Maastricht-had to Google that one but I remembered it vaguely) but that is not our system...at the moment.

Calls for a written constitution are premature, the UK constitution allows for incremental change as he forms and conventions evolve. A written Constitution like the US has leads to unexpected consequences like amendments about military service being used to justify gun saturation. In Australia we felt all superior because we wrote a bit more of our Constitution than the Poms ("haha we're better than you!")...and it bit us on the arse (section 48 and the banks, creeping centralisation and the abuse of the foreign affairs powers).

This may be an evolutionary moment for the UK. If Parliament decides (among themselves in back rooms) they can fire off referenda because the civil service don't like the result so be it: if they aren't completely walloped out of Parliament a the next election the new convention may stick. Maybe that's the smart move?

Certainly the UK will be impoverished and its people (at the very least) severely inconvenienced by a Hard Brexit. Like James II Farage may be "right" in some way but his ideas damage the UK.

Parliament has broken the Constitution for less before. In 1688 they forged an incompetent King's abdication so a nice Dutch mercenary rent-a-King could lead them to war with France for some nice profitable piracy and colony theft. Maybe this is a moment when Britain uses some good old fashioned British corruption to adopt some cosy European corruption?

[Copperknickers II]

Calls for a written constitution are premature, the UK constitution allows for incremental change as the forms and conventions evolve.

I'd put it the other way round - calls for a written constitution are too late. We are experiencing a once in a century crisis, which has already irreversibly changed our political system through precedents already set, and may yet change the borders and the very name and flag of the country. The country which emerges out of the Brexit crisis may well be to all outward appearances not so much an 'incrementally changed' one as a whole new political entity. We are familiar with revolutions of the American type, where a smaller country gains independence from a larger one. And with the French/Russian type, where internal forces rise up and overthrow the old regime.

What we are seeing currently in Britain is a third type, whose model is something not totally dissimilar to that of the Young Turks' secular nationalist creation of Turkey from the ashes of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. That happened not through a revolution per se, but through an internal constitutional upheaval outwardly framed by defence against aggressive external powers, but which in reality resulted in a total reconfiguring of the internal state which, though dreamed up and led by fringe elements, was facilitated and enabled by the ruling elite themselves. It remains to be seen whether Johnson or Corbyn will take on the role of Ataturk.

Parliament has broken the Constitution for less before. In 1688 they forged an incompetent King's abdication so a nice Dutch mercenary rent-a-King could lead them to war with France for some nice profitable piracy and colony theft. Maybe this is a moment when Britain uses some good old fashioned British corruption to adopt some cosy European corruption?

Thank goodness that parliament did so. I'm no fan of William of Orange but he was at least better than the alternatives - ruthless Cromwellian dictatorship or tyrannical absolute monarchy. We can thank the Glorious Revolution for the fact that we have even the current dysfunctional mess that passes for democracy in Britain today.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

No so surprising. May, Johnson....lost years for UK. Corbyn while maybe not fully friedly to those big companies is still lesser known evil. Bojo is upredictable pile of mess.

And about Cumming, if he is as garbage as you say Dante, that is exactly what Conservatives are showing last year or two. Total garbage.

Fair point, i think the big issue is that Boris's domestic agenda is shakey, as is his brexit policy. If he'd at least get a solid domestic platform that wasn't reliant on rhetoric over substance, he might be able to allay the fears of business somewhat.

Haha well i suspect strongly Cumming's is very much an overrated adviser- his track record to this point is pretty poor and i'd tend to assign the blame for current strategy to him rather than Boris, specifically because i don't think Boris would have been silly enough to do things like outright fire 21 Tories when you don't have a majority already and a GE isn't assured due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act. It wasn't even either that he tried to convince them and failed, apparently the Tory rebels prior to yesterdays vote were seen by Boris, where Cummings proceeded to shout at them a lot, and demand they vote with the government. Which naturally did not endear them at all.

Supposedly too the majority vote has been so large partly because Reese-Mogg peeved Tory rebels off who were waving by his needless antagonism in the chamber (it was a bit over the top). Again it leads back to the broader picture, and that is simply Boris may struggle during any GE as he simply doesn't have a Cabinet or team who is competent supporting him.

An astonishing day in Westminster. The big new development is the successful vote in favour of the Bill which if passed through the legislature, would force Boris to choose between:

a - delaying Brexit until next January

b - holding an election before October 31st

This represents a massive defeat for the government and drastically decreases the chance of leaving with No Deal at the end of next month. However, it's far from a done deal. The Tory Lords are trying their best to filibuster the Bill, as well as to make damaging amendments in order to stop it. And there's even some suggestion that the 'accidentally passed' amendment which Dante pointed out earlier on was actually a ploy by the government to torpedo the Bill by incorporating a clause which would resurrect the possibility of Theresa May's deal. It's not clear yet whether this will change anything or not. And Boris still has some options left to try to gain the upper hand in other ways (ironically, the main one seems to be calling a vote of no confidence against himself!).


The two things we've learned from today, paradoxically, are:

1. The fixed-term parliament Act has absolutely crippled parliament's ability to deal with a crisis of this nature - the government has been condemned to the same fate as Prometheus of Greek myth: condemned to have his innards torn out by the Eagle of the opposition without a killing blow ever being delivered (some might say, just desserts for its opening of the Pandora's Box of Brexit).

2. But at the same time, it's become quite clear that there's basically no way now to avoid an election in the relatively near future, since both sides have so much political face to lose from not having one and so much to potentially gain from winning (despite the fact that there's a fairly big chance that both main parties will lose seats and it will just make the mess even worse... this Brexit rabbit hole is starting to look deeper than the deepest pit of Tartarus. Let's just hope the Furies restrict their anger to punishing the hubris of Boris Johnson, rather than letting Britain fall into civil unrest or No Deal Chaos.

Really good analysis here. I'm interested in the point about Kinnocks 'accidental' amendment being a government ploy. I can how it might play favorably to them, considering the past time of rejecting May's deals was about the only thing that ever brought Parliament together. It is frustrating though that beyond the commentators noting it, thus far it hasn't been 'officially' addressed, in either how it happened that no tellers turned up, or what people will do about it. We'll just have to wait and see indeed.

What are the chances do you think of Boris conceding to respect the 'anti no deal' legislation in return for a GE? (To then undo the legislation if he wins a majority somehow), i think Peston was the first politico to raise this as a possibility, but it might see Boris lose too much going into a general election having u-turned on his core commitment (literally i get a tweet a day from Boris's account about his undying commitment to the 31st).

[caratacus]

Fair point, i think the big issue is that Boris's domestic agenda is shakey, as is his brexit policy. If he'd at
What are the chances do you think of Boris conceding to respect the 'anti no deal' legislation in return for a GE? (To then undo the legislation if he wins a majority somehow), i think Peston was the first politico to raise this as a possibility, but it might see Boris lose too much going into a general election having u-turned on his core commitment (literally i get a tweet a day from Boris's account about his undying commitment to the 31st).

Johnson should put off sending the bill to the Queen for signing until Monday, after which the parliamentary session will end and it will die legally. The Commons should never have been allowed to undetake this bill anyway by that wretch of a Speaker Bercow. Even his own legal clerks advised that it was constitutionally inproper. Today has been nothing short of a parliamentary coup.

However, I cannot see Johnson doing this, he seems to lack the strength of will or the conviction to rise to the challenge and looks weak. He certainly isn't rallying the troops on the Conservative benches against this brazen move by Remainers in the Commons.

[mongrel]

The Lords have voted to get the Bill returned by Friday, ready for Royal Assent on Monday, so there will be no chance of filibustering etc. Boris is running out of options.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-end-of-friday


Here is one reason why Boris's plans must be stopped. From Private Eye magazine...

[Copperknickers II]

Johnson should put off sending the bill to the Queen for signing until Monday, after which the parliamentary session will end and it will die legally.

That would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage. It would also not actually solve Boris' biggest personal problem which is that he has totally lost all semblance of a majority. An election is now his only viable option if he wants to pass his Queen's Speech and become any kind of functioning government. And he knows his best hope of winning an election is to have one as soon as possible. I wonder if he'll deem that calculation worthwhile - getting his way over Brexit, but handing the country to Jeremy Corbyn?

The Commons should never have been allowed to undetake this bill anyway by that wretch of a Speaker Bercow. Even his own legal clerks advised that it was constitutionally inproper. Today has been nothing short of a parliamentary coup.

On what grounds should they not have been allowed to undertake the bill, other than the fact you personally don't like it?

What are the chances do you think of Boris conceding to respect the 'anti no deal' legislation in return for a GE? (To then undo the legislation if he wins a majority somehow)

I think that's basically his only realistic option left. As I mentioned above, Dominic Cummings is always pushing Johnson to do 'whatever it takes', which would mean refusing royal assent for the bill, but I wonder if Cummings hasn't overegged the pudding this week. It's becoming increasingly clear that his strategies have failed and actually made things worse.

[Daruwind]

My biggest issue is his international image. Lying to own nation, ok you have election to fix it. But Bojo was plainly lying into eyes of closest and most powerful friends in EU. UK´s credibility in the sink...

[caratacus]

That would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage. It would also not actually solve Boris' biggest personal problem which is that he has totally lost all semblance of a majority. An election is now his only viable option if he wants to pass his Queen's Speech and become any kind of functioning government. And he knows his best hope of winning an election is to have one as soon as possible. I wonder if he'll deem that calculation worthwhile - getting his way over Brexit, but handing the country to Jeremy Corbyn?

I would have had this rabble flung out onto College Green, the doors locked and announced new elections without their participation. Forget about the EU. we need to fundamentally change our system of government and get a written constitional free from interpretation of individuals who are not lawyers. This government, this parliament, cannot and will not govern in the interests of the Country. It must be dissolved and begun again after elections.

On what grounds should they not have been allowed to undertake the bill, other than the fact you personally don't like it?

Right from the start of Brexit, this Commons Speaker has demonstrated his absolute bias against Brexit and he has consistently schemed with Remainers to manipulate the constituential practices of the Commons to their advantage.

Today he is again using his position to ensure that the bill, which he himself enabled against the advice of his secretaries, is passed by using his own interpretation of an unwritten constitutional procedure.

Bercow rules that Queen’s consent is not required for bill blocking no-deal Brexit
https://royalcentral.co.uk/interests...brexit-130072/

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has ruled that The Queen’s consent is not required for the bill being debated in the House of Commons on Wednesday which seeks to block a no-deal Brexit.

This partly scuppers the government’s hopes to block the bill from coming into law should it be passed.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Boris's own brother has quit the Government and become an independent MP:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793

It merely slightly worsens and already horrid situation for Boris (Again literally of his own making), but politically is a bit of an Ooof moment.

I think that's basically his only realistic option left. As I mentioned above, Dominic Cummings is always pushing Johnson to do 'whatever it takes', which would mean refusing royal assent for the bill, but I wonder if Cummings hasn't overegged the pudding this week. It's becoming increasingly clear that his strategies have failed and actually made things worse.

Fair analysis, this is what i suspect too. I actually would tentatively say that his (and Cumming's) overreach this week might effectively see the end of the Conservative government, providing the opposition (Looking at Corbyn) remain united and hold off on a GE, it just gets worse for Boris's position. I know certainly Norman Smith this morning on the BBC made a point that an election in November hugely favours labour (With no-deal off the table for now and the 31st October no longer a factor).

I would have had this rabble flung out onto College Green, the doors locked and announced new elections without their participation. Forget about the EU. we need to fundamentally change our system of government and get a written constitional free from interpretation of individuals who are not lawyers. This government, this parliament, cannot and will not govern in the interests of teh Country. It must be dissolved and begun again after elections.


Right from the start of Brexit, this Commons Speaker has demonstrated his absolute bias against Brexit and he has consistantly schemed with Remainers to manipulate the constituential practices of the Commons to their advantage.

Today he is again using his position to ensure that the bill, which he himself enabled against the advice of his secretaries, is passed by using his own interpretation of an unwritten constitutional procedure.

Agreed on the written constitution and reform, but this is a process that should have happened before Brexit. Even the speaker making such moves while unorthodox is 'allowed' under the Westminster system (and certainly Boris refusing to put forward a majority bill for this would be illegal). The issue overall though is that appetite for parliamentary reform has always been small and brexit seems to have killed it completely. Certainly the Tories or Labour would never go for it.

[Greyblades]

This is all so tedious, nothing accomplished that can survive the next election, merely putting off the inevitable and increasing the numbers of mps that wont be reelected.

[Cope]

This is all so tedious, nothing accomplished that can survive the next election, merely putting off the inevitable and increasing the numbers of mps that wont be reelected.

The Conservative and Unionist Party needs to be replaced with something that resembles a conservative and unionist party. This had to happen.

[Muizer]

We need first proportional representation using the single transferable vote system, then we need a written constitution.

Didn't the UK overwhelmingly vote against STV in the 2011 referendum?

[Aexodus]

We had a vote on alternative vote, but we’ve never had a vote on stv.

Stv is used in Northern Ireland for local elections to the assembly.