In principle I should be pretty fed up that the EU Withdawal Bill made progress during the night by passing its second reading in the House of Commons. In practice, apart from being intensely disappointed by those Labour MPs who were unwise enough to vote for the government, I am not. This was only the first skirmish and the news that even arch pro-Brexiteers are queuing up to limit the Bill's powers suggests that there is room for some hope as yet.
There is, though, another reason for not despairing as yet. This is, after all, enabling legislation. It only has any meaning if and when it is decided that we actually leave the EU. I am of course, well aware that technically we do that in March 2019. Whether in fact we do so still seems open to doubt though.
So little will have actually been agreed on what might happen by then I still wonder whether any sane government would let departure happen. We do not, of course, have a sane government, but even so the wiser heads might prevail. Leaving with everything in place would be difficult enough. Leaving with virtually nothing in place will create too many risks for any government to take, surely?
I can live in hope that sense might prevail.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I sometimes struggle to understand what the likes of Ronnie Campbell and Kelvin Hopkins are for.
And as for Field and Hoey, if only we had a system of Primaries. Never were two MP’s so utterly out of step with their constituents.
“Let departure happen”? Not really how Article 50 works, is it?
‘Leaving with virtually nothing in place will create too many risks for any government to take, surely?’
All I can say is that I fear that today’s Tory party has a lot of ex- financiers and hedge fund managers in it who rely on chaos to make the money they have grown to love and keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
The effects of this sort of laxity on those of us lower down in the pecking order does not feature on many a Tory’s radar. Just look at the pain they are causing with austerity since 2010. They inured to it.
These Tories are ideologically driven Richard. Their ‘restructuring of the economy and society’ is just a prelude to the Darwinian survival of the fittest (the richest) ‘ that ensues. My view is that you attribute more brains to them than they deserve.
“We do not, of course, have a sane government…”
I’m afraid (perceived from EU27) you haven’t got a sane electorate, either.
But you have some reasons for hope, among them Gina Miller and maybe Jeremy Corbyn …
I think that, although a large number of Conservatives are rabidly pro Brexit for either idealogical reasons or in support of narrow vested interests or both, there are not insignificant numbers who are against hard Brexit or against Brexit altogether.
In the short term the Conservative soft Brexiters and remainers will continue to tow the party line for the sake of avoiding the government collapsing and gifting Corbyn power but I suspect they’ll move to support a second referendum at the last moment to protect the country and their own consciences/reputations.
Labour has to pick the right moment to move more strongly against Brexit such that it stands the best chance of winning any snap election with a mandate to stop Brexit (or at least hard Brexit) while keeping the door open to helping facilitate a second referendum in the event there’s no election till after Brexit.
Probably the brexiters losing a second referendum would trigger a collapse of the government and, in the absence of a strong alternative Conservative leadership that’s pro-remain this will lead to JC as PM. This has the potential to stay Conservative remainers’ hands on a second referendum. It’ll potentially be a bit of a Catch-22.