I never expected to witness events like yesterday. Or come to that, those still to come. It was simply unimaginable during the years of my political edification (and so those of many senior parliamentarians) that there would be a day when the prime minister would admit she could not pass the only legislation that defined her government, and then lose control of the House of Commons and, despite that not only remain in office but do that with the very clear intention of defying the right of parliament, and so the people of this country who they represent, to have the legislation that they might want. This is an exercise in contempt for the due processes that have underpinned the way that the UK has been governed for so long that to a certain degree I have to agree with Bill Cash, and say that this is a dangerous precedent. But it is dangerous precisely because May willed it into existence and it is taking extraordinary steps to curtail her abuse of power.
So let's get the record straight: I am delighted MPs voted as they did last night. And despite being very fatigued I had to stay up until I knew what they had done.
Now let's move on and consider next steps. If Letwin uses an alternative vote or single transferable vote system the will of parliament can be determined on this issue. I suspect a multi-stage AV system, so preferences can be expressed when it is known what has been excluded, might produce the best outcome. In other words, within hours, and with little debate required because all sides already know the issues involved, parliament could do what May has consistently prevented, which is to express its will on what course of action it wishes to pursue. I am clear, my desire is revocation, followed by a People's Vote, and then soft Brexits. I will not express which in order: I do not know what will be offered.
My suspicion is I will not get what I would want. This is the UK, and compromise is what we used to do. I suspect a soft Brexit, most likely Norway++, will be the chosen option. It makes little sense to do that: you might as well stay in the EU in my opinion. And it removes none of the threat to the integrity of the UK: Scotland would still have every reason to leave (if it has not already). But that's where I think the choice will end up and I can see every reason for that. No one will be very happy. That's the foundation of all successful compromises.
But will the government then pay any attention? This is the real question. And the evidence is that they will not. May has already virtually said so. So has Liam Fox, and Stephen Barclay (not that a man who can vote against a motion he has just appealed for support for has any moral authority). What May clearly intends to do is carry on with her own plan (if it can be called that) of offering her deal until time runs out. She will simply hold parliament in contempt and will it to do anything about it.
What she knows is that the Tories will not vote for a no-confidence motion.
What she also knows is that convention says that the government promotes legislation.
She what she hopes is that she can simply defy parliament until 12 April and then get no deal by default. The ERG will support her.
And constitutional experts say that this is the likely outcome.
I do not claim to be a constitutional expert. I am just an observer of these things over many years. But I will go back to my opening comment. There I noted that I had never expected to witness events like these. And my suggestion is that in our unwritten constitution if the Prime Minister acts as May is doing - which is outside any norm ever previously known - in an environment where the Fixed Term Parliament Act creates the need for new precedents - then to say matters will proceed as past convention dictates is simply wrong. I am quite sure Bercow will also think that. And he will permit past convention to be broken to permit the will of parliament to be legislated.
There are at least three ways to do this. Parliament can vote to suspend standing orders again to let this happen.
Or a procedural process could be used to introduce a Bill. There are a number of options, I think. For example a presentation bill could be upgraded for debate. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/presentation-bills/.
Or the Lords could rush a bill through and then the Commons could pick it up. That is entirely possible.
In other words, I do not agree that there is no way to get round May. Precedent is Bercow's to make. Bill Cash will just have to be offended. Parliament has to rule. That is what democracy requires. Everything else is secondary, including the wishes of a prime minister whose judgment is now so impaired that her wishes have to be ignored. This is a fight for the future of sound government itself. I only hope MPs are up to it.
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:
If we can say anything about all of this it has at least revealed the true contempt of our democracy and society at the heart of these anti-social, Neo-liberal Tories who think that Parliament is just another trading floor upon which to make hay for themselves.
The Tories do not like us and they do not care.
May’s dispatch box is her Keep and she will not relinquish it to anyone but her party. She has the twisted dedication of a kamikaze pilot and WE are the aircraft she is flying.
The working philosophy behind her obduracy – talk of commitments being made in manifestos – is deeply flawed. The Tories talked of electrifying the midland mainline but then changed their mind after the election (of course). And what about May’s ‘burning injustices’ that still burn brightly? So much for keeping one’s promises? But what I cannot fathom is this attitude that the referendum was or must be like a GE in that a decision is made and everyone accepts it without question. No allowance has been made for the passage of time, the unique delay in implementation and changes in knowledge and understanding. Or to put it more bluntly, these factors have been purposefully ignored by significant players.
I agree with the Norway++ idea because it may solve the enduring UK problem of certain Parliamentarians of any political persuasion being unable share sovereignty with the EU (even though the UK has always gone for opt outs on aspects of the treaties it does not like) whilst enabling the benefits of trade to roll on. I can see Norway++ lasting a long time until the Bill Cash’s, Redwoods’ et al etc all die off (although seeing Rees-Mogg’s mini-me son being driven into chequers made me very worried).
And yet we have politicians who have wept crocodile tears over making ‘tough decisions’ like Universal Credit, austerity and declaring their own people ‘stateless’.
Many of these could not deliver a ‘tough decision’ of a no confidence vote in Parliament for someone who has increasingly shown that she is one egg short of an omelette as far complex stuff like this is concerned.
Out here everyone is totally fed up for one reason or another. But someone is going to have to be disappointed I’m afraid.
I hope it is the Leavers. And if they kick off – well – we know how to deal with them don’t we – like we dealt with the miners and the printers at Wapping in the 80’s?
‘What goes around comes around’ as they say.
The success of the Commons in wresting some measure of control from a failed government is indeed remarkable and without precedent. However, everyone seems to be talking about Theresa May’s deal, but the “deal”, the proposed Withdrawal Agreeement, is a proposed agreement between the UK Government and EU. Both sides are invested in this. If anything is to replace this proposed agreement it must be done with the full engagement of the EU. And that could take as much time as it took to compile the current proposed agreement – though it might be further advanced on the nature of the future relationship.
The only way this can work is for Article 50 to be revoked, but with a commitment to invoke it after a defined period of time during which Parliament would work out what it wants.
I have a simple question – Are we witnessing a coup d’etat?
Centuries old parliamentary procedures and precedents have been transformed into technicalities in a way which might have brought smiles to the faces of courtiers in Byzantium. Chaos rules but is contained within the confines of Westminster (think of the contempt shown to the nearly 6 million signatories to the Revoke petition!).
All that’s required now is the appearance of a knight in shining armour to save us from ‘ourselves’ and I shall be convinced that the answer to my question is “yes”.
Amen to that, Richard – though I fear that Letwin and co. will not use anything so sensible – and novel to the House – as any sort of AV or preferential voting. Perhaps, Bercow could assist there with encouraging innovation. However, he may, very undertsandably, wish to keep his powder dry for the really vital challenge which will be making it possible for legislation to take place despite May. As I noted before, she is the major threat to any democratic resolution of the crisis. Her performance yesterday, and the supine behaviour of the alleged ‘remainers’ in her Cabinet, more than matched my worst expectations. All credit to the three junior ministers who resigned and enduring shame on the Labour MPs who voted, in effect, for her ‘dictatorship’ and the further emasculation of the House. May has become messianic in her megalomania and her repeated veneration of a referendum, which everyone knows was fraudulent, and bears little relation to the current balance of public views, is now about as rational as Mike Pence’s faith in Creationism.
The one tiny candle left alight – Bercow apart – is that her No Deal brinkmanship may also push, as Angus Brendan has argued, revocation into play at the last moment. However, before that ‘crunch time’, Wednesday does lie ahead – so we’ll see
Yes, who knows what happens from here? All we can do is hope for the best, and that disaster is avoided. This is the worst government I’ve ever known, led by an utterly useless PM, who is unfortunately opposed by a nearly useless leader of the opposition.
Still, there are glimmers of hope; Bercow as Speaker, MP’s finally doing what they should have done weeks ago and taking some control of Parliament’s agenda; and this “In all, 29 Conservative MPs rebelled the whip. One of these was Damian Green, May’s former deputy and one of her closest political allies.”
Nice to see there are some Tory MP’s who have some degree of political courage and are finally prepared to put the future of the UK before the ‘unity’ (is there any left?) of their party.
Thanks for this, I was wondering just how Parliament might move on beyond Groundhog Day.
I find it astonishing that we find ourselves in a position where Parliament might have to legislate to protect it’s citizens from it’s own government. As you say, I hope they are up to the job.
What I have heard on tonight’s news is that Tory refuseniks vote for May’s deal on the understanding that once it gets through, she will stand down then a BREXIT friendly replacement steps in to negotiate.
What can you say?
If any one from Labour votes for that, then they want their heads examining.
How changed will the deal be? I hope that Bercow is on form.
Agree with that
fyi
the petition page has been updated,
Parliament will debate this petition on 1 April 2019
a statement in response has also been posted,
it’s the same obstinate refusal to budge an inch on anything, quelle surprise….
the petition is circa 5,778,000 and still rising, some constituencies have over a 25% sign up rate.
I remain unconvinced by the ++ appended to Norway.
I suspect ‘plus plus’ means ‘plus plus’. I fear it might prove to be a popular option because it ‘sounds nice’, but I think it means bugger-all.
Perhaps we could have a referendum……. if the ‘Will of the people’ is for the UK to have more Fjords then the next Tory government can get on with promising to source and install them….
What larks, Pip.
🙂