The SNP-Labour Ceasefire Amendment: What’s Going on
Lewis Burns
29/02/24
(Image Credit: Marcin Nowak, Unsplash)
“Disgraceful '' MP Robert Jenrick called it. Owen Jones saw it as “gruesome politics”. “A god-awful spectacle.” said Ian Dunt.
Parliament was in chaos last week. MPs screeched across the aisles as others stormed out in a hearing that can politely be called a, ending with calls for the removal of the Speaker of the House.
This is a messy situation, and you can hardly be blamed for being lost. Here’s a quick rundown of the events of last week, and why they matter.
​
Why did this happen?
This chaos was kickstarted by a single proposal, a vote for the UK Government to officially call for an end to the brutal devastation occurring in the Gaza strip. Following the horrific attacks committed by Hamas on October 7th, Israel is dead set on eliminating the organisation's presence in Gaza, and in doing so, has amassed an unprecedented number of civilian deaths.
Calls for a ceasefire have grown louder as the human toll in the Middle East continues to rise. The SNP has been a vocal critic of Israel’s actions. Humza Yousaf has called for a ceasefire and an end to the selling of arms to Israel. The SNP put down the opposition motion for a ceasefire.
Why did Labour Oppose it?
Hundreds of Labour MPs argued that they could not back the motion as the SNP proposed it due to it accusing Israel of engaging in “collective responsibility” against the Palestinian people.
Starmer met with the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, and successfully convinced him to accept the Labour amendment, a major shift from usual parliamentary procedure.
Wait, can he do that?
Well, yes, but not really, well kinda. It’s complicated. There are no strict rules governing how the Speaker accepts amendments, but it has become a president; an agreed upon rule that is rarely violated. Westminster rules are sorta like etiquette, they only exist as much as people are willing to believe they exist, even if they’re not set in stone.
It is precedent for the Speaker to table a proposal and allow the ruling party to add amendments if needed before a vote. But there’s nothing to prevent the speaker from allowing amendments from other parties- it is mostly decided at the discretion of the speaker themself.
What has the fallout been?
This has been a severely divisive issue in UK politics. Labour supporters have seen Hoyle’s decision as necessary, giving the house a greater say and allowing MPs to vote for a proposal they feel comfortable in. SNP supporters see this as something far more sinister: a clear betrayal of democracy itself that has made Hoyle’s decision untenable.
In the aftermath of last week's tumultuous events in Parliament, characterised by chaos, shouting matches, and impassioned calls for the Speaker's removal, it's evident our political system needs to change, if we want to push through the issues that matter.