SNP Pushes for Fresh Debate on Gaza at UK Parliament
3 min read
The United Kingdom Parliament has been the scene of intense political debates and controversies in recent days, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) leading the charge for a fresh discussion on the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The chaos that ensued during a previous Commons vote on the issue has prompted the SNP to apply for another debate next week.
The SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, expressed his disappointment in the handling of the previous debate by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. The SNP had proposed an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, while Labour called for a humanitarian ceasefire, and the government tabled its own amendment for a humanitarian pause. The Speaker’s decision to allow a vote on Labour’s amendment resulted in the SNP’s motion not being formally voted on, leading to uproar among MPs from both parties.
Sir Lindsay has since apologized for his handling of the debate and has indicated his willingness to allow a fresh debate under emergency rules. However, it remains unclear whether this will enable the SNP to force a vote that could potentially drive a wedge between other parties on the issue. The SNP is seeking an emergency debate on a motion setting out “concrete actions” the UK could take to promote a ceasefire at the United Nations.
The party’s statement emphasizes the need for MPs to move the debate forward by putting pressure on the government to take a firmer pro-ceasefire stance. The SNP intends to use a little-used Commons procedure that allows emergency debates to take place at short notice. However, Commons rules suggest that this process only allows for a vote on a neutral motion, where MPs simply state they have generally considered an issue rather than making a decision.
The SNP will have to formally apply for the debate after the Commons returns on Monday, potentially prompting further scrutiny over Sir Lindsay’s handling of Commons procedure. The controversy surrounding the Speaker’s decision during the previous debate has already led to more than 70 MPs declaring no confidence in him as Speaker.
The SNP’s decision to push for another debate comes amid heightened scrutiny of MPs’ stance on the Israel-Hamas war. The chaos that unfolded during the previous debate, with the SNP’s motion not being formally voted on, allowed Labour to sidestep a potentially damaging rebellion over its stance on the SNP’s ceasefire call, which also criticized the “collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”
Labour’s own amendment supported a ceasefire but noted that Israel “cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence.” This prompted accusations that Sir Lindsay had played “party politics” with the vote. The SNP’s discussions with Sir Lindsay before publishing the motion it wants to see debated could put him in an awkward position if the party tables a motion detailing a range of specific demands on the government.
The controversy surrounding the Commons debate on the Israel-Hamas war is not unique. In 2019, former Speaker John Bercow allowed MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit to use an emergency debate to take control of the Commons timetable, which was seen as another controversial break with convention. This allowed MPs to make a binding decision, prompting accusations of a breach of parliamentary procedure.
The House of Commons has been the stage for numerous debates and controversies throughout history. The ongoing conflict in Gaza and the political maneuvering surrounding the debates on the issue serve as a reminder of the importance of parliamentary procedure and the potential consequences of its misuse. As the SNP pushes for a fresh debate on the issue, the UK Parliament continues to be a focal point for political discourse and decision-making.
In conclusion, the SNP’s push for a fresh debate on the ongoing conflict in Gaza at the UK Parliament comes after the chaos that ensued during a previous Commons vote on the issue. The controversy surrounding the Speaker’s handling of the debate has led to more than 70 MPs declaring no confidence in him as Speaker, and the SNP is seeking to apply pressure on the government to take a firmer pro-ceasefire stance. The potential implications of the SNP’s decision to table a motion detailing a range of specific demands on the government could put Sir Lindsay in an awkward position. The ongoing debate serves as a reminder of the importance of parliamentary procedure and the potential consequences of its misuse.
