I am not really the person to ask about the perils of seeking to do things in haste. I spend a great deal of my life trying to get things done by yesterday. And that's not because I am late. I hate being late. It's because I want to get on with things.
But I have learned over time that this is not always wise. Second thoughts are possible, and even desirable. Most ideas improve when discussed. That's a reason why I appreciate most of the comments on this blog. And sometimes it's just appropriate to make changes.
Experience shows that governments know this. It is astonishing how many changes to legislation that are proposed in the Commons are from the government itself because it has realised that its first draft could be improved.
All of which is to say, of course, that debating the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) in three days is a terrible idea.
And there is no need for it.
First, the EU will grant an extension. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Second, the reason for the delay in getting to this Bill was entirely down to the government. Since the April extension was granted Theresa May wasted time continually failing. Then we had a leadership election. And then Johnson, quite deliberately, did nothing for as long as possible so that this situation might be engineered. This ‘crisis of timing' was chosen.
I have no idea how today's votes will go. I have a suspicion that a second reading of the WAB might pass because it is time one was discussed, if only to permit its amendment and, even, eventual rejection. But the attempt to curtail debate to three days is a travesty of justice, of democracy and of the supposed status of parliament that Leavers claim is so dear to them.
I am sure that the government needs to lose on this issue. Delay on this occasion is both necessary and wise because the result will be better for the country, whatever the eventual outcome. And what defeats me is why the Leavers should want an unwise Brexit.
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:
All I would add to your post is that I thought that we’d agreed that those behind Leave actually relish a messy BREXIT because they are adherents of ‘creative destruction’ as advocated by the financial sector.
This applies to people from Crispin Odey (one of of Boris’ backers) down.
Johnson gets paid more money to write for the The Torygraph than he gets paid to be Prime Minister doesn’t he? Just what is he losing if he ruins the country and is voted out? The media will still revere his family because of its celebrity status. He’s got it made.
I see nothing but gains for those who support or are inside the Tory party because in their world, that’s all that matters.
Those members of the public who support BREXIT are just being used to fulfill the ambitions of richer but lesser people.
It is very simple but also very sad. The motives to me are clear.
What I want to know is if whoever clears up this mess will consider banning credit default swaps and other self interested financial devices that are actually market manipulations.
Satyajit Das likened CDS’ derivatives to buying insurance on assets that you do not own and benefiting from some negative event befalling the real owner of those assets when you get a payout (this goes against the real world where you can only insure what you own).
He also suggested that owners of CDS’ had a vested interest in seeing these negative events coming to fruition (why else would Bori’s backers support his premiership and BREXIT policy?).
So – ‘the invisible hand of the market’ eh? There is nothing invisible about this to me. It is straightforwardly criminal – unnatural even. And undemocratic. And they’re getting away with it.
It has to stop.
And what defeats me is why the Leavers should want an unwise Brexit.
Me too. My first thought is that they would see any back tracking as a defeat and the end of their ambition. This is their personal thirst for power and their desire for de-regulated American style economy as explained in “Britannia Unchained”. Their alternative is to press on and hope for the best, knowing that compliant newspapers will blame everybody else while they pose as ‘defenders of the popular will’. They can hope that the weakness of the Labour party and the resurgence of the Liberal Democrats will split the opposition vote.
The other thought relates to the EU Tax Avoidance laws and the powerful vested interests which oppose them. This is widely quoted but I am doubtful if it is their main motivation.
I very much doubt it too
A general election is the only means of breaking this log-jam. But I fear it won’t provide a beneficial resolution. The opposition parties can’t move until an extension is set in stone. As Sir Bill Cash constantly reminds people, the current law of the land is that the UK will exit on 31 October.
Once an extension is secured the stated reason for the opposition parties’ refusal to vote for a general election will evaporate. The smaller parties will be gung-ho, but I suspect Labour will wriggle. I cheerfully concede I gloriously underestimated Labour’s ability in 2017 to hold its support and to garner an additional 3.5 million from almost all corners. Former Labour voters who had previously voted for UKIP returned; former Lib Dem supporters who had switched to Labour in 2015 stayed with Labour; Labour secured a large share of new voters and benefitted from the halving of the Green vote; and some Conservative remainers in Lab/Con marginals switched to Labour. It pulled off the trick as being seen as all things to a large number of disparate voters.
But in the next election these Labour inflows will be reversed in spades. All of the internal conflicts and contradictions have been revealed in all their glory.
The vagaries of FPTP mean that the PM may be deprived of the Commons majority he craves, but there can be little doubt which party among the Tories and Labour will have more seats in the Commons.
There is no doubt the Tories will win the most seats
Of that I am sure
Paul Hunt says:
” As Sir Bill Cash constantly reminds people, the current law of the land is that the UK will exit on 31 October.”
And that sums up the total stupidity of the situation we are in with Brexit. The default position should always have been to revoke Article 50 if no satisfactory deal was agreed.
We’re in the position now of a customer going into a shop and the default position is that the customer has agreed to not leave the shop without making an expensive purchase. In the real world the unconvinced (would-be) customer leaves the shop empty handed.
All the imperative was on the Brexit promoters to make case, but the rules have been subtly turned round against us, and against sanity.
2017 was Corbyn’s high watermark. Despite being against a weak campaigner in May and her dreadful manifesto, he still came second. The Tories will be motivated this time, and will weaponise Brexit, and like him or not, Johnson is twice the campaigner that May is, and on a personality level appeals to more people than Corbyn does. Momentum have never been able to face it, but there are a significant number of ‘Never Corbyns’ out there.
A General Election is likely to lead to a similar distribution of seats in terms of numbers. What the Tories lose in Scotland and the West Country can be made up in some Brexit-supporting Labour heartlands. What will kill off Remain chances is that soft-Brexit Tory MPs (particularly those without the whip) will be replaced by hard-Brexit, swivel-eyed loons.
And that’s the BEST we can hope for in a General Election. The only possible thing that can improve prospects of a more progressive chamber is if (ironically) the Brexit Party damage the Tories. Nigel to the rescue!! It needs to be a 2nd EU Ref first, but sadly, I see that slipping away.
@stemfr:
Some interesting and plausible predictive observations there.
“2017 was Corbyn’s high watermark. ”
I’m afraid that by turning down the opportunity to be part of the Progressive Alliance he threw away the chance to get into No 10. I didn’t think, then, he would get another chance and I haven’t been convinced differently since. Though the fact that he still holds the leadership means he’s not dead yet.
” What will kill off Remain chances is that soft-Brexit Tory MPs (particularly those without the whip) will be replaced by hard-Brexit, swivel-eyed loons.” Agreed, but if some of the whip-less Tories decide to fight their constituencies as independents that could upset the result perhaps. Most, I think, won’t do that and some have already said they won’t. It could be the first time that we see the right wing vote split, especially if Faragists enter the fray as they say they will. I expect they’ll form tactical agreements though and the actual damage will be only slight.
“And what defeats me is why the Leavers should want an unwise Brexit.”
A very small number of people driving Brexit will, one way or another, make a great deal of money (further increasing their already dominant power base) and the more the chaos the more they stand to make; from financial market movements, ‘vulture’ capitalist, bargain basement asset purchases, tax avoidance devices (they hope) and lucrative board positions in the new post Brexit world of de-regulated and US dominated business.
These self-serving donkeys are supported by undernourished moth eaten, undernourished lions who believe all the jingoistic crap they’ve been fed about sovereignty and control.
Which bit don’t you understand ? Neither. I suspect, your final comment is purely rhetorical. I share your dismay that there should be any surviving popular support for this destructive madness.
The wartime imagery we have been subjected to recalls the wrong 20th Century war. This is more akin to a rerun of WW1 played to an economic and financial playbook rather than chucking whizzbangs between trenches.
There will be a similar outcome, affecting all social classes, but without the actual blood-letting.
No way we we ‘get it done’ by Christmas. Not even next Christmas which seems to be the current target date.
I am trying to work my way through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. I am a student of philosophy so well versed in reading dense text matter but the language is technical and to a surprising degree (at least to my view) lacks specificity. The expression “A Minister of the Crown may by regulations–“ peppers the bill. I may be worrying unnecessarily but it feels like a power grab by the executive from the legislature. It also feels like a plan to allow a UK (English) minister to downgrade the ability for devolved bodies to exercise their devolved rights. I hope I am wrong. The withholding of any form of economic impact assessment is a disgrace it is an essential part of coming to a fully rational decision.
Incidentally the timetable motion represents yet another lie to add to the ever growing list of BoJo’s falsehoods. What happened to “there will be ample time for MP’s to debate the bill.”? The time really has come for a root and branch reform of the Constitution, the electoral system and the mechanisms for producing legislation in Parliament.
You are spot on
This passes legislative power to ministers throughout
“This passes legislative power to ministers throughout”
I hadn’t spotted that, but it’s entirely consistent with the trend of concentrating executive power and decision making in Downing Street.
Thatcher put the process of centralising power onto steroids and there has been no reduction in the dosage since. The model apes the White House, presidential palace model.
Until recent months when Parliament has belatedly begun to assert its authority there has been no contest. In order to get this shift centralisation towards the next stage of completion Boris Cummings is framing the contest as between parliament and people. False battle lines but……
One SNP MP David Linden did, on Twitter, post a pic of a 60+ page impact assessment he got, apparently very late last night. He wasn’t amused at the tardiness. Looks like a lot of MPs did some midnight reading and now have to turn up and sensible ask sharp questions today.