I do not claim to be a student of parliamentary history. But I am aware of the norms of my lifetime. And by that standard yesterday's parliamentary votes were unprecedented.
May did not just lose. She has done that before. Her government was found in contempt of parliament. That, I gather, is previously unknown.
And on Brexit, parliament anticipated their own rejection of her negotiated deal by granting themselves the right to decide what happens next. In doing so there is little doubt that they have decided that May will either not know what to do, or will get it wrong if she presents a plan. This was a vote of no confidence in all but name.
But May carries on, largely because Cameron and Clegg stitched up parliament so that a failed government could survive, come what may (or May).
The consequences are obvious.
We have a Brexit crisis. There is no viable Brexit plan anymore, although the fact that parliament has taken back control just about (I hope) rules out a hard Brexit because parliament will never vote for that. Remain is all that is left, and it now looks like the Brexiteers much-loathed European Court of Justice might rule that possible without the consent of the other 27 member states in the very near future. But how we get there is not clear.
We have a prime minister in crisis. It seems almost impossible that May can survive a lot longer.
We have a governing party in crisis. I think it reasonable to assume that there is no one else who could now unite the Tories.
We have a Labour Party in crisis. Despite all this it cannot command convincing poll leads.
We have a constitutional crisis. The fact that it is proving so hard to get the rid of the government despite these continuing failures is evidence enough of that.
We have a potential national crisis. I listen too well to my Brexit friends, and the none too subtle warnings of some of them of what they think will happen to prominent Remainers in the event of us staying in the EU, to think that all who wanted to leave the EU will accept remaining with equanimity.
And we have a foreign affairs crisis: our national reputation will be diminished for generations. The idea that we are a player on the world stage can be quietly fogotten. The idea that we can achieve much in the EU can also be laid aside for a while. Acquiescing is the best we can do whilst a long process of re-assimilation takes place.
All that can be said is that the Good Friday Agreement is intact; a conflict with Spain over Gibraltar has been avoided; Scotland may take a little longer to leave the Union (although I cannot be sure of that) and British business has greater certainty, which will transfer into economic prospects that are better than those that would have happened with Leave, but will still not look that good.
Which, in other words means that all the massive range of issues that have needed to be addressed in the last two years are still outstanding. Resolving those issues, from failing public services, to failing benefits systems, to failing infrastructure investment, to an absence of policy to tackle climate change, to building the homes this country needs, to delivering tax justice, to ensuring that we never again suffer this constitutional mess, to also setting budgets that permit all this whilst facing down the EU, to solving private debt crises, to bringing economic policy out of the control of bankers and back into the heart of government: all of those issues still need addressing.
And I am really not sure who has the vision to take that on.
But I did note that Labour, the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and the Greens could work together yesterday in the national interest. If only they could also work together to deliver reform in the wake of this national disaster we might just have hope. I stress, might.
I am a pragmatist. It was good to see parliament assert its will yesterday. But there is a long, long way to go as yet. And given the scale of the task facing the country - which I would rate as the biggest challenges since 1945 - I am not confident that the answers are in any one party - not least because, as yet, I do not see anyone party winning a general election.
And that is a profound concern.Not least because Labour remains so tribal.
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:
You make the critical point here: the first thing the Tories focussed on when they got behind the wheel again in 2010 was to rig the system to esconce themselves in power. And the gullible Lib Dems let them get away with it. At the time I was a Lib Dem member and it was on this, not tuition fees, that I resigned my membership. I knew what the consequences of their naivete would be, and here we are. Unable to toss the worst ever PM (since the previous incumbent – boy do the Tories make them) out of office.
We need a government of national unity, working to rebuild the nations with a new representation system, giving more power to them and the towns and regions that constitute them, bringing back some sense of ownership and control to people.
If leaders understand that, they can still win people over. If not, more of the same.
And Climate change won’t wait.
I too am a pragmatist. The country voted to leave the EU, we have agreed with our EU partners how this will happen and so it should take its course.
It is not for politicians and parliament to stand in its way.
The vote was not binding
We have found we cannot leave – that is what the backstop says
So parliament has to resolve the dilemma
That is not standing in the way as I see it
It is recognising that an impossible to deliver decision was made
I’ve already e-mailed my MP – Alan Mak – using Jolyon Maugham’s ‘Good Law Project’ template, with additions – asking him to support a withdrawal from Article 50 as a matter of urgency. Knowing Alan’s preference of remain loyal to his Party, I doubt that he’ll even remotely consider doing so. (So far, during our e-mail ‘conversations’, I’ve never received an
answer that didn’t spout the given Conservative line. In fact, I doubt whether he’s ever seen any of them!)
@Noel, the leave vote was rigged by illegal spending and possibly Russian interference. And additionally, it was not a majority of the population (only those who would and could vote) when you consider those disenfranchised such as overseas residents, Europeans living here for decades etc.
Leaving in almost any scenario will be a calamity, not a case of leaving the golf club with outstanding greens fees unpaid.
Where is the plan from the leavers that show exactly how will will manage to trade under WTO rules? Oh and the idea of doing our own plucky GPS satellite scheme is dead in the water – no spectrum nor much ‘space’ in space.
All the endlessly repeated mantra that ‘the country voted …’ is all very well, but 17.5 million out of a population of 66 million means there are 48.5 million that did not vote to leave the EU. Yes I know that includes the under 18s (though note in Scotland you can now vote at 16). Taking just the adults it was basically one third leave, one third remain and one third did not vote. That is not at all ‘clear and decisive’. The UK is also not a country, it is rather (so we were told in 2014) a Union of four countries who are ‘partners’ in this Union. In which case two out of those four countries voted rather more decisively not to leave the EU. Had Cameroon taken that into account when framing the referendum we might not be in this mess.
Several points worth noting here.
Ben makes an excellent point about the stupidity of the Lib Dems in going into coalition with the Conservatives, and enabling them to cling onto power via the Fixed Parliaments Act. Disaster after disaster, with Brexit the biggest of all, and yet they’re still in power.
“I listen too well to my Brexit friends, and the none too subtle warnings of some of them of what they think will happen to prominent Remainers in the event of us staying in the EU, to think that all who wanted to leave the EU will accept remaining with equanimity.” If that is the case, and not just the usual Brexiter bluster, then I can only repeat what PSR said in another blog yesterday, which is to bring in the police and other elements of the security services, and deal with these stupid thugs appropriately. (Assuming the police still have enough resources to do so after years of austerity)
“But I did note that Labour, the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and the Greens could work together yesterday in the national interest. If only they could also work together to deliver reform in the wake of this national disaster we might just have hope. I stress, might.” In the case of Labour, they need to drop their idiotic tribalism, and the arrogant insistence that the only way for progressives to get a progressive government is to vote Labour. New Labour’s failure to deliver PR after 13 years in office, and Corbyn’s apparent belief in FPTP are a betrayal of progressive politics.
I would not put much store in opinion polls Richard they can often be used to form public opinion rather than measure it.
An attempt can be made to use polls to influence rather than to reflect public opinion. Polls can be manipulated to give a false picture of public opinion. Moreover, there is evidence that since polls are believed to be reliable and useful, the public could be misled by unreliable surveys.Pollsters, by and large, reject the charge — but behavioural economics shows us that there is some truth in it.
Pollsters are careful to avoid influencing the outcome of a poll through priming and order effects in the survey design, but there are many other stumbling blocks to bear in mind. Behavioural economics shows that in general people want to follow the crowd and not challenge the status quo. So if we see an opinion poll telling us what the majority thinks, believe or is doing then, in many circumstances, we will have a tendency to follow the herd.
I know all that
I also know that any informed commentator would expect Labour to be far ahead now
It is not
It knows it is not
And given what it is up against that is astonishing
I suggest a touch of realism would help you
Hi Richard,
You suggest that “any informed commentator would expect Labour to be far ahead now,” but I’m not sure if this argument holds much water in the post-referendum era of British politics, which remains as polarised around around Brexit as ever.
You have often criticized Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leadership for sitting on the fence over Brexit. But as argued by the excellent Stephen Bush in New Statesman a few months ago, the hypothesis that Labour would be far ahead in the polls by now if it more vehemently opposed Brexit is not a compelling one:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/07/would-labour-be-ahead-polls-if-it-opposed-brexit
So a bit unfair, IMO, to both criticize Labour for not being sufficiently anti-Brexit and criticize Labour for not being further ahead in the polls.
And I disagree
Entirely
Other hypotheses exist, in other words
We have a Labour Party in crisis. Despite all this it cannot command convincing poll leads.
Would those be the same polls which said that :
Ed Miliband would win the UK election in 2015?
Remain would win the referendum in 2016?
Hillary Clinton would US President in 2016?
Theresa May would get a majority of 100 in the UK elections of 2017?
Or some other polls?
But not all those polls did say all those things
So shall we stop being silly?
With respect, Richard, I was not being silly.
You have much more faith in psephology than I do. There is only one poll I will believe – that one done where each voter can state their preference on the day of the election.
I believe that the electorate is fickle and does seem to have a herd mentality – and the consensus can quickly change. Timing is everything in the run up to an election.
As it says …
“Using opinion polls to pick the winner is about as accurate as using Google Earth to measure out your food portions”
in https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/18/opinion-polls-unreliable-banning-elections
But to think Labour is doing well right now is bit credible
Sorry
That’s just not true
“The ultimate authority in the English Constitution is a newly-elected House of Commons. No matter whether the question upon which it decides be administrative or legislative; no matter whether it concerns high matters of the essential Constitution or small matters of daily detail; no matter whether it be a question of making a war or continuing a war; no matter whether it be the imposing a tax or the issuing a paper currency; no matter whether it be a question relating to India, or Ireland, or London–a new House of Commons can despotically and finally resolve.”
Thus spoke Walter Bagehot in The English Constitution
“The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”
Thus spoke Dicey in the Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
It would seem that the two primary sources of both political and legal constitutional wisdom are agreed. When the electorate ascertain that certain people should stand in their stead to govern their state they grant awesome power. It would also seem that the incumbents of the Palace of Westminster have demonstrated they are incapable of exercising those powers in a cogent and coherent fashion. As the source of power, but not the agency exercising it, the electorate has to assume it’s responsibility and form an instruction to clarify how it intended power to be exercised in greater detail. Only two forms of plebiscite are available to facilitate this – a General Election or a Referendum. The former offers the opportunity for greater depth of argument over a wider scope of the subjects in dispute. This comes at the cost of time that would seem to be in short supply. The latter offers a faster response but at the cost of fully informed position taking.
It would seem to me that the Government, should it lose the vote on its proposal to exit on the terms negotiated by Mrs May, should finally admit the fait accompli and it’s inability to resolve the matter in the time that remains. They should establish whether the EU is prepared to suspend article 50 to allow for the UK to resolve it’s internal differences. If it will, then there should be a general election and the parties should commit to manifestos that make crystal clear exactly what their positions are. Both Labour and Conservative will require time to establish those positions. If the EU do not or cannot grant a suspension then a referendum on all options should take place. The electorate would have to order their preference for the options available from 1 – X. The electorate should be told that once the result is known a subsequent referendum would finally choose between the two most popular (least unpopular) options. The result of the second referendum would be binding.
Sadly the above will do nothing to ease residual resentments that will take many years. I would suggest that constitutional and electoral reform would help, education about our political machinery would help, a reform of the archaic and arcane procedures of the HoC would help. People have to accept no political decision stands in perpetuity by right, that would be a denial of our democratic right to change our minds. All that can be done is for us to recognise on this occasion we have failed and the system has failed and set to mending what is broken.
ps I should add that Bagehot & Dicey specify ‘English’ law and constitution and in our current position this would suggest the General Election option is therefore preferable.
Thanks
I think ever since England signed the Treaty of Union in 1707 then they have disregarded and indeed wilfully ignored the Treaty. BOTH the English Parliament and the Scottish Parliaments were suspended sine die by the Treaty. Westminster is not the English Parliament continuing, though it has always behaved exactly as if it was. The Treaty established a NEW Great Britain (later UK) parliament and if any of the normal rules applied then Treaty of Union would have been an unalterable element of the written constitution. A joint Parliament established by International Treaty does not have the power to alter the founding Treaty. Only the original English and Scottish Parliaments could do that. Sadly there was no such thing as International Law in the 18th century and no means available for enforcing treaties, especially where one party was so much smaller than the other.
It is still the case, though, and somewhat grudgingly conceded, that Parliament is NOT sovereign in Scotland. The People are and always have been (even if in the past that was very narrowly defined as the nobility and affluent). There was no automatic inheritance of the Throne and each coronation was subject to confirmation (rarely not forthcoming).
Pedenatic, perhaps but…
There was no “Treaty of Union” between Scotland and England signed in 1706/07. There were Treaties; English and Scottish.
Both countries agreed to “suspend” or “abolish” their own parliaments, in both respective treaties (Scots/English) and create a new parliament, for the two countries, which would be known as “The Parliament Of Great Britain”. This is what Westminster palace is.
Wales (already an English domain) and Ireland (already an English Conquest) had no say and did not write treaties. The “UK and Northern Ireland” amendment doesn’t add or remove anything from either the Scots’ or English Treaties of Union.
So, what we actually have now is that one partner in the Union has NOT agreed to leave the EU and the other has. This is why Scots politicians, well, the SNP in the majority, by dint of being the Scottish Government, have sought to remediate and mitigate the other partner’s policy to leave.
Pedantics now aside, what may be the end-result of the constitutional debacle over Brexit is that the shall be no “UK” to Br-exit the EU. The Scots’ parliament has already voted and struck down T. May’s negotiated “deal” and a group of multi-party Scots’ politicians have clarified through law that the leaving is not irreversible.
I expect that this is part of a strategy, as opposed to the clarification of a point (in law).
Despite those wishing for “national unity”, to get through the mess by either continuing or halting brexit, the reality is that NO such unity exists; it is a fabrication and propaganda tool of those who cling to the idea that Britain=England=UK.
It would seem that the “dog-whistle” nationalism so commonly referred to by the main stream meeja is strangely but, in reality, rightfully absent in Scotland. What there are, are politicians of higher calibre and they have strategies, plans and contingencies. All this from a “devolved” (in the British nationalist sense, read “inferior” parliament, who are not meant to be involving themselves in constitutional matters!
No wonder the main shortage of food supplies in Scotland consists solely of popcorn!
As Joanna Cherry said yesterday in the Hoc “Ironic that 6 Scottish politicians found a route out of this mess” despite our views, as expressed by Holyrood, being totally ignored by Westminster….
Indeed
She’s a great MP
No article or posting about Brexit can be complete without a comment that Labour is awful and Corbyn is worse. Those things may be true but please do not forget that yesterday’s drubbing was delivered to you by Keir Starmer. Corbyn may not be way ahead in the polls, who knows? He was 20% behind when the 2017 election was called. Richard should calm down a bit- the cat is in process of being skinned.
Only a tiny minority are convinced
I could be wrong
But I am entitled to think I am not
And am most certainly allowed to disagree with you
That Labour cannot expect our votes other than on the basis of the “even worse” says it all for me.
Interviewed last night by John Snow, McDonnell stated that Labour would make a better job of negotiating BREXIT than the Tories.
That is not good enough for me.
BREXIT has been done badly, as badly as any tin pot dictatorship whose voting processes we have insisted on sending in international observers in to watch. If we have to have another vote I want the U.N. involved or some other independent invigilator to ensure things are done properly next time.
That is how low we have been brought by this calamity. We have been defrauded of our stability and future generations of their prosperity. I am in the process of taking on new contractors and they tell us that things have just stopped – no one is doing anything because of the uncertainty. There is bound to be a time lapse in reporting on the economy but it will filter through eventually.
The only thing that is worth backing is a stop BREXIT vote in Parliament exercising its sovereign powers in the interests of the nation. Parliament needs to ‘man up’ and do it’s bloody job and rule for all.
And for all you nasty violent right wing insurgents out there, woe be to you if you kick off. Before you kill any more female MPs (such bravery for your country!!) read Bill Lawrence’s post above and take time to learn a little more about the nature of executive power the country you have actually lived in for so long. And if you don’t like it, please emigrate.
The people had a vote in 2017 in the GE – a chance to get rid of the real culprits for the economic and social woes being the Tories. But ‘the people’ – the great English public – the most sophisticated electorate in the world apparently (I ask you!!)) – screwed it up in their infinite wisdom and couldn’t even be bothered to terminate Theresa’s reign and try something new.
Instead you choose to walk blindly over a cliff and into a great black hole taking with you many who do not want this. Your turn away from the imperfect EU and run into the arms of people who are even worse and whom have led you to this point. That is what you BREXITERs are doing. For goodness sake – THINK! You are being abused by the very people who are hurting you and you just do not see it.
Lots to agree with above. Flash back 2,500 years and you find Greeks voting for genocide one day and to recall the ships almost the next. “Will of the people” twits neglect plenty of examples of this changing for the better and that modern democracy should hardly rely on oratory given whay we have known for 2,500 years. More recently we have seen 17 million Germans (at least as sophisticated as us) vote Nazi. Would they not have wanted another opportunity on better understanding? The number of politicians and presstitutes about claiming stuff about what the people want is based on zero we should regard as research. A new referendum is needed, though I now think this needs to extend to opinion on our wider system – one clearly hapless and non-modern. I have seen nothing in Parliament and public debate that gets at any of the real grievances and issues, not least the influence of vested interests in our public language.
People like the author have been underestimating Jeremy Corbyn for three years. I back Jeremy Corbyn’s judgement over theirs any day.
That’s good
He backed mine
No, what it says is that a vocal minority of the country won’t accept the legitimacy of the decision and wets the bed at the thought of having to make any adjustment to carry it out.
Anyone who sincerely believes that the UK or any member state cannot leave the EU betrays a fatalistic mindset that reinforces how important it is that Brexit go ahead. Is the EU the Hotel California of supranational organizations?
An advisory decision that breached treaty obligations in the form promised is not legitimate
I think the ointment pretty significant
If you are going to argue – rather than abuse, which is all you are good at – please try to do so based on some facts
a fixed term parliament was a liberal Democrat policy long before the coalition. it was intended to prevent government from calling a GE at short notice for party advantage and to encourage cross party cooperation. it is working now.
Really?
Are you sure?
‘Encouraging cross-party co-operation’?
What – you mean like the how the Tories bribed the DUP into propping them up with an injection of cash when they told the rest of the country that we had no money in order justify austerity?
That sort of ‘co-operation’?
Mmmmmmmmm………………………..
Dream on fella!
If … one thinks that both the major parties have become collections of deeply incompatible, squabbling groups, that are probably irreconcilable. And if you think that it would be better if they did split up, and we need some form of PR. Then whatever new parties emerge are going to have to learn to negotiate, compromise and collaborate.
Unfortunately after centuries of adversarial, winner takes all politics in the UK, that is completely counter cultural. Most other democratic countries have been doing that for decades or more. Id rather have the more extreme groups out in the open, even if that means that they have representatives in Parliament, than have them potentially taking over major parties that are supposedly representing wider cross-sections of opinion.
Thats not to point in any particular direction. Its as much about giving say the Greens a valuable and proportionate voice, as its is about accepting a UKIP presence but stopping UKIP taking over the Tories.
True PR would of course give certain groups we may not like more of a voice. But how it should work is that the other parties can check their more extreme behaviour policy-wise.
It all depends on how PR is set up.
There must be pre-conditions that such a UK PR system is meant to uphold. We need a new contract between the governors and the governed.
For example the pre-conditions:
Economic stability
Well-being of all its people (this should come first really)
Full employment
The social market ( markets that have interventions from the State for the benefit of all)
A society that takes responsibility for others
Environmental quality
Transport
Health.
Investment in the country and in its people by printing sovereign (real) money.
The removal of the House of Windsor (sorry but I feel that modernity is held back by this lot of cling-ons).
I could go on but I’m at work. But our too informal constitution has been eroded by funny money and decades of anti-Statism.
BREXIT has also revealed how weak and vulnerable the assumptions around our constitution is, that it has lost its way and that it is ineffective. We have a Parliament or we don’t and I’d prefer that we did. And I’d prefer that it looked after all of us.
And I say this to any Labour supporter or PR advocate: If you want to stop populism the only we you can do that is to invest in the people.
If you want rid of populism then INVEST IT OUT.
Remember that the gravy train at the top of society exists because it co-opts the lawyers, accountants, banks and MPs by ensuring they get a nice fat share of the spoils. So if it is OK for them to buy each other, progressives must buy back the will of the people and not be afraid to do it and also be radical (and not so self conscious about like Labour currently are).
Look after people – that’s how you stop populism. Look after people and populism as a creed will die never to be reborn.
So true:
“If you want rid of populism then INVEST IT OUT.”