The Moral Duty of MPs

Moral Maze

BBC

Society & Culture, Religion & Spirituality

4.4 • 623 Ratings

🗓️ 31 January 2019

⏱️ 43 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Another week, another page of script written in the screenplay for ‘Brexit: The Movie’. The plot and cast-list are beginning to look more complicated and extensive than those of the fantasy series ‘Game of Thrones’. MPs on all sides are voting on amendments (and amendments to amendments) to the Prime Minister’s deal. Within this muddle lies a fundamental question: what is the moral duty of a Member of Parliament? When they are deciding how to vote, should they be guided by their personal red lines, or the way their constituents voted in the referendum? What about the manifesto on which they were elected? Isn’t the main thing a pragmatic consideration of the national interest? These unprecedented times also raise a significant question about whether ultimate power should be held by government, Parliament or the people. It’s argued that the government has to be in control, or the country will lack the leadership to deal with the crisis and risks descending into self-indulgent chaos. For others, the very nature of the crisis demands that Parliament must have the opportunity to say no to ‘no-deal’ or push back on the backstop. Add to that the shouts in favour of taking the crisis back to the people, although no future referendum can guarantee a clear-cut result to get us out of the mess. With all that in mind, is it time to rewrite the constitutional rule-book? And who has the moral authority to do it?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	You're listening to a programme from BBC Radio 4.
0:03.8	Hello, good evening. British politics is right now like a car being driven by the Duke of Edinburgh.
0:09.6	The system is dazzled and shocked, and it can't agree on the right speed to go.
0:13.9	Even the Queen has asked us all to learn to listen or put another way, calm down, dear.
0:18.7	It seems that everyone in the land has been on the radio with their political
0:22.0	view. But what about the moral dimension of all of this? In the country and in Parliament as the
0:27.7	clock ticks. Must MPs follow their constituents or their conscience, should they be delegates
0:33.4	or representatives? In history, didn't one of them once say, you use your judgment to elect me for mine?
0:41.2	Is the site of MPs jostling for their own amendments
0:43.7	an honest use of Parliament's power or an abuse?
0:47.4	MPs won power from the monarch to pass to her ministers
0:50.1	to be moderated by the system,
0:52.1	who could then be voted down or voted out.
0:55.7	So Brexit's revealed a country divided about Europe, but also about power, where it should lie and how it should be
1:01.5	wielded. Is Parliament a parrot caged by the people? Or can it spread its wings, find its own voice,
1:08.4	and can a moral compass help us balance a plebiscitory with a representative democracy?
1:14.2	All the panellists are relieved. I got the word plebiscitory out.
1:18.1	They are Melanie Phillips, the Times columnist. I wrote communist out in my notes earlier. That's a mistake.
1:24.1	Mona Siddiqui is Professor at the University of Edinburgh, Anne McKell-Voy, senior
1:28.4	editor of The Economist, and Giles Fraser is a turbulent priest. Let me begin by saying our
1:33.8	panellists are split down the middle on the political question. Anne and Mona wanted
1:37.8	remain, and Melanie and Giles want leave. Point of order, I've never declared what my leaning is on Brexit.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of BBC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.