Obvious confusion and feeble attempt

THE CONFIDENCE MOTIONS

by Frank E da Silva

In Dr Linton Lewis’ article in the Friday, February 16 edition of SEARCHLIGHT newspaper, he gave four reasons why the Speaker was correct in amending the vote of no confidence that was brought by the Opposition.

1. He argued that Section 47(2)(a) authorised the House to consider the Opposition’s motion. In that regard, he contends that to consider the motion involves amending the motion pursuant to Rule 32 of the Standing Orders of the House. Dr Lewis in his well-reasoned and scholarly article demonstrated that there are no rules in the Constitution that dictate how a motion of no confidence should be considered and therefore the Rules of the House apply. In support of those arguments, Dr Lewis demonstrated that the Constitution says what should be done to bring a motion of no confidence to the House and the Standing Orders of the House say how the motion should be considered.

2. Dr Lewis also questions whether using the words “no confidence” is mandatory in the formulation of a motion of no confidence. He contends that once it is clear on the wording of the question that the Opposition is asking the House to declare that it has no confidence in the Government that will be sufficient. Accordingly, he went on to argue that the mere words are not as significant as the purpose and effect of their usage. The purpose being for the House to declare no confidence in the Government, with the effect being a dissolution of Parliament.

3. Dr Lewis argued that by amending the motion from one of no confidence to one of confidence, the Opposition could have used the same arguments that they intended to use in a motion of no confidence in order to convince the majority in the House to vote against the Government. He contended that once the Opposition secured the majority of the votes, the Prime Minister will be required to dissolve the House, pursuant to Section 48(5) of the Constitution.

4. To buttress his arguments, he explained why the Constitution made provisions for the bringing of a motion of no confidence and why it was not necessary for the Constitution to provide for a confidence motion to be brought by the Government.

Hence, it was grossly dishonest for the writer of an article published last Friday in another newspaper, to have extracted one of the reasons given in support of Dr Lewis’s findings in support of the Speaker’s decision to give the impression that it was the sole basis upon which Dr Lewis’s article was written and even in so doing the writer of that article has missed the point that Dr Lewis was making and gives the most unfortunate impression that Dr Lewis was misleading the readers.

Dr Lewis, in his article, said that confidence and no confidence motions are referred to as censure motions. The writer of the article, having read the research paper of Richard Kelly, a document that was mentioned in the article of Dr Lewis, confirmed that confidence motions are also referred to as censure motions.

The writer of that article, in an attempt to oppose what Dr Lewis wrote, was totally confused in his/her responses. For example, the writer stated, in reference to the excerpt from Richard Kelly, “It clearly says in brackets that they are also known as censure motions but doesn’t lump them all together as censure motion (pg. 2 para 6).” What is the point that the writer is trying to make? Dr Lewis said that Richard Kelly referred to them as censure motions. The excerpt that the writer extracted and quoted from Kelly also said that they are referred to as censure motions, so what is the point that the writer is trying to make when he or she wrote “…but doesn’t lump them all together as censure motions.” There is nowhere in Dr Lewis’ article that he mentioned anything about lumping no confidence and confidence motions together. What Dr Lewis did argue, and quite rightly so, was that no confidence and confidence motions seek to establish one issue and that is whether or not there is confidence in the Government. Hence, in trying to make a point, the unnamed writer is either totally confused about the point that he or she is making or understood very little, if any, of the contents and substance of Dr Lewis’ article.

The writer has once again demonstrated his/her total misunderstanding of the issues involved. For example the writer uses the following quotation to ground his/her argument; “Votes of confidence or no confidence (also known as censure motions) are perhaps the most important Parliamentary procedural devices, as in the Westminster model, the fate of the government is ultimately dependent on the support of a majority of MPs.” Yet, having used that quotation from Richard Kelly, the writer thereafter made the following statement: “Therefore it is clear that no confidence motions are distinct in that, just like in the written constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines (remember Britain has no written constitution) they are the only ones which can bring down a government if passed.” Kelly clearly said that in a vote of confidence or no confidence the fate of the Government depends on the support of the majority. What this means is that if the Government loses a vote of no confidence or a vote of confidence its fate will be determined. Therefore, why is the writer saying that the motion of no confidence is distinct? From what is a motion of no confidence distinct and how is it distinct? The writer was unable to answer those questions in his/her article. If the writer is saying that the motion of no confidence is distinct from a motion of confidence, then that does not make sense because if the Government does not get the support of the majority votes in the House for either of those motions the Government will fall. Richard Kelly and Dr Lewis are making that argument, but the writer is totally confused about the argument that he or she is trying to make. Because the writer is using Kelly’s statements in support of his or her arguments, yet arriving at totally different conclusion to the one that Kelly has expressed.

In the article, under the subheading Long Standing Convention, the writer was once again confused. The writer contended that the Government is unable to amend a motion of no confidence. In support of that contention he/she quoted an excerpt from page 7 of Richard Kelly’s article, where reference was made to a motion of no confidence that was brought to the House of Parliament in Great Britain on 9th June, 1976 by the opposition Conservative Party against the Labour Party. The Speaker refused to allow another opposition party, the Liberals, to amend the motion. The Speaker did not prevent the Conservatives the official/main Opposition party from amending the motion. The writer used that refusal to mean that a motion of no confidence cannot be amended. What the writer did not do or refused to do was to also quote the paragraph immediately below the Speaker’s remarks, which totally contradicted the Speaker’s contention.

not to amend a motion for no confidence, an amendment to such a motion was made on 31st January, 1985. Previously amendments were made to no confidence motions in 1956 and 1965. It is clear that the writer did not want the readers to know that an amendment to a motion was made after the 1976 motion, hence, supporting Dr Lewis’ contention that the motion of no confidence can be amended.

Again the writer clearly confirms that he /she is confused when he/she contended that the following was not a motion of no confidence;

“This House deplores the hasty and ill-considered actions of Her Majesty’s Government during their first hundred days of office and has no confidence in their ability to conduct the nation’s affairs.”

The argument that the writer has made throughout the article is that the words “no confidence” in a motion of no confidence actually matter. Yet the writer is arguing that the words, “…has no confidence” in the motion of no confidence that was brought in the British Parliament on of 2nd February, 1965 do not matter. Therein lies the perplexity of a confused mind.

With respect to the Fixed Term Parliamentary Act 2011 in Great Britain section 2 provides for a dissolution of Parliament if (a) after a vote of two-thirds majority the Government lost a motion of no confidence which states that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government and (b) if within 14 days of losing a vote of no confidence the Government does not win a motion of confidence which states “That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

The Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 is of no benefit to the Opposition in St Vincent and the Grenadines. If anything, it strengthens the Government’s position that an amendment can be made. The difference in that Act is as follows; (1). Whereas in St Vincent and the Grenadines a majority vote in the House is necessary to succeed in a motion of no confidence, in Britain, the votes must be at least two-thirds majority. Whereas in St Vincent and the Grenadines the Constitution provides that Parliament should be dissolved on a successful motion of no confidence, in Britain, Parliament is only dissolved where within 14 days of the vote of no confidence, the Government does not survive a vote of confidence. In essence, Parliament cannot be dissolved unless there is a vote of no confidence and within 14 days a corresponding vote against a motion of confidence. Interestingly enough, the recent confidence motions in the House of Assembly in St Vincent and the Grenadines actually mirrored the requirements of the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011. There were essentially two motions before the House of Assembly – the original motion of no confidence and the amended motion of confidence. Hence, when the writer mentioned the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 to support his/her argument, he/she consistently showed that he/she was totally confused because the provisions of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 actually mirror what transpired in the House of Assembly and in no way does it support or buttress his/her argument.

The effort to respond to Dr Lewis’ article was obviously motivated merely to oppose, without much thought given to the basis upon which the Opposition was to be predicated. It would be wise to read Dr Lewis’ article again, but this time in its entirety and with an open mind. Of all the reasoning that Dr Lewis gave in his article, picking out one issue to justify your prejudices is most unfortunate. Such approach stifles your conscience and suffocates your ability to think clearly, in order to avoid the obvious confusion.