One day into debate on the EU withdrawal bill in the Commons and rumour has it that Tory MPs from both sides of the Brexit divide are willing to join opposition MPs in opposing the so-called Henry VIII powers that would let ministers amend up to 1,000 laws using little scrutinised secondary legislation. Whatever their reason, it seems Tory MPs may join Labour, Welsh and Scottish nationalist, Green, LibDem and independent MPs in wanting to 'take back control'.
I welcome that move. I hope it happens. But what then? What if all changes to UK law resulting from Brexit have to go to the Commons, as they should even though there is not a hope that there is time in the day to do that between now and March 2019?
The one thing we can be sure of is that there would be no agreement on this. The Brexit Tories are opposing these powers because they do not want the EU laws adopted. Others oppose because they do not want ministers to amend those laws inappropriately, as I suspect would happen. The consensus on the consequences of denying the powers will break down very quickly in that case.
So what's left? First, a withdrawal bill in tatters. Second, there will be a Brexit process that literally cannot be delivered. And third, there will still be a prime minister and Conservative Party determined to carry on nonetheless, knowing that they may not be legislate but that they are also unlikely to lose a vote of no-confidence.
It's hard to imagine a bigger political mess. And we are heading for a cliff edge because of it. This is increasingly looking like a nightmare in the making of greater proportion than I ever imagined.
But, I stress, that is no argument for the powers. It is, instead, the case for an entirely new approach. The time for a Progressive Alliance has arrived. But will Labour take the lead? I wish I could answer that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
May appears to be trying for the Henry powers via an alternative route anyway http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-powers-grab-plans-parliamentary-system-fix-a7935276.html
Thanks for pointing this out
Shocking
There is so much politically going on inside the argument. One notable thing is that many calling for a progressive alliance only want a vehicle to put a position of rejecting the referendum as the official declared route.
Right from the start the Starmer/Labour position has been to abide by the position. Only doing that will open the door to all possibilities because challenging the Tory Brexit con is enabled this way. And it is why Starmer started the process so strongly yesterday.
To be blunt, I equally fear neoliberal contrivance in Remain as much as I do the hard-Brexit ultra-right. Experience tells me that they will praise Starmer in order to influence him, and that the despairing underlying urge with many in the P/Alliance Camp is to use Brexit and Brexit debate to preserve neoliberalism.
And as preserving neoliberalism is what enabled populism, I am even more fearful.
Labour could not and cannot divulge their planned route and its flow-chart options, meaning the politically-driven aspect of PA has had easy chances to undermine opposition to Brexit because they could not see beyond self-serving open-goals. That in itself gives the game away. Not talking about the whole PA debate of course, simply the significant agenda-led rabble who hijack the concept and hence ruin its (at least immediate) prospects.
Don’t think many on here will agree, but I strongly believe Starmer and Labour show real potential to expose Brexit and thereby significantly change/dilute collective Leave opinion. But too many in the PA camp want the ref result ignored, and as such entrench Leave support and risk what they aim for.
Brian Cartor,
Your part of that conversation was a little hard to follow.
Are you saying then it is now impossible for the UK ever to leave the EU? We physically can’t do it even if we want to?
I think we could
But only with more time and a cross party approach that is wholly absent at present
No, it’s worse than that: the current situation is that we can ‘crash out’ and it is increasingly likely that we will. Currently, we can’t ‘leave’ in the sense of an orderly transition to working trade agreements and transport links, and a workable replication of the essential functions of the state that the EU currently performs *with* us and we are no longer fully capable of performing on our own.
I say ‘currently’ because I am an optimist, even in the face of an unnecessary disaster, and I have to disagree with the “Can’t ever” core of your comment.
If we had a competent and confident government, with a consensus in the country and a commanding majority in Parliament, with a clear strategy and policy for leaving the EU, pushing for an orderly Brexit in a well-led and well-planned negotiation, we could leave with an unhappy but workable transition to a poorer future, rather than simy crash out.
I will gloss over the obvious point, that a Cabinet and Prime Minister with that level of political acumen and administrative skill couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to leave the European Union.
The current state of Brexit is that our side of it is in the hands of deluded berks with no understanding of negotiation and diplomacy, nor of trade and economics; and they are going to ‘deliver’ something far worse than nothing and ‘no deal’ in a tour de force of political ineptitude and arrogant contempt.
As I say: it’s worse than merely being unable to leave.
Agreed
Last night on Channel 4 News was enough to remind me how difficult it is going to be for any rational party to think of a new approach to this mess. The issue is so toxic.
I saw Mr Davies at the dispatch box ensuring that the public think that Labour want to keep us in or are just dithering.
And then there was avowed Tory BREXITEER Suella Fernandez (ex-lawyer/barrister – of course) smiling at the camera talking about the ‘will of the people’ blah, blah, blah with no Labour counter argument present (still a toxic subject for them then).
I remain worried. There’s more pickle here than in the production line at Branstons.
Yes, this chaotic situation is deeply worrying. While not a big fan of his, Keir Starmer seems to be one of the few public figures with any grasp of the implications – maybe because of his QC background. As the saga unfolds I’m increasingly persuaded by the conspiracy theory that May and her cohorts want it all to end in tears so that she can say to the country ‘I told you so – the EU just wouldn’t cooperate so we told them to get stuffed’. This would play out well with the Mail, Express & Star. Hence with their readership – albeit a minority but an angry, vociferous one. It might even pump some life back into moribund UKIP.
As stated before, May & Co. will put party politics and power before true democracy and the nation’s long-term interests, assuming she even knows what they might be. However, I do think she’s politically very savvy and, although better suited to be the headmistress of a middle-ranking private school, she’s an experienced Westminster wheeler-dealer not to be underestimated, with some hard-core friends in high places. At this stage of the game, the outcome is anyone’s guess. Fortunately I’m not a betting person; just a chronic pessimist when it comes to the governance of the UK.
An equally big question is what is Corbyn’s real game? I don’t think it’s in his nature to join, let alone lead, a formal Progressive Alliance. Besides, he harbours an inner antipathy to the EU doesn’t he. Are you hearing any positive rumblings from your inside contacts? We need to hear some encouraging news from somewhere.
I would hazard a guess that right now Corbyn et al are mightily relieved that they did not win the last election, because the task of ‘honouring’ the referendum result and achieving a good brexit is impossible. Labour would never have gone for a referendum unless they wanted to leave and had a clear plan to do so. No matter how sceptical Corbyn and McDonnell are about the EU, they are not stupid.
Given a bit more time to allow the tories to completely f**k up and public opinion could change, leading to a change in Labour’s policy at the next election.
Remember that Labour are sustaining irreparable damage from their failure to be an effective opposition – and not just to Brexit.
The Parliamentary Labour Party *may* change their policies; they *may* start taking a lead on society and justice and equitable economics; and they *may* become a coherent and effective force for good under an effective leader.
And they may just continue dithering and bickering, and timidly mentioning a better society, while there most prominent media tacticians pander to ‘kippers and corporate interests, while their support in the general population drains away.
Disillusioned electorates can and do vote for change – any change, anything and anyone that isn’t ‘the current shower’ – but an ‘opposition’ that’s complicit in the worst decisions, and pandering to the worst elements of the populism which led to them, may well be lumped in with ‘that shower’.
An ineffective opposition will not engage the voters; and if the electorate start turning off the worst of our political media coverage, and start formulating a factual foundation for their votes and their opinions, the ‘ineffective’ label will still damage Labour. As will ‘divided’ and the spectre of another SDP-style schism.
God alone knows who or what will hoover up the votes in that election.
Meanwhile, in the known unknowns of politics today, the media are not onside for May but they are comprehensively onside for the most destructive elements of Conservatism.
The unknown unknown of social media manipulation and algorithmically-targeted opinion engineering is known to be pro-Brexit and the bots are turning out for Rees-Mogg – as far as we know – but how effective they will be remains unknown. Or ‘unknown’ between ‘somewhat’ and ‘we can swing a decisive half a million target voters’.
It’s a definite ‘known’ that they are not pro-Labour and the Labour Party have no counter-strategy at all.
So public opinion might not change at all, even in the face of massive economic damage. Labour can do better, and Corbyn deserves to; but the Parliamentary Labour Party are largely choosing not to.
Labour can’t respond to the secret manipulation of voters through social media, specifically Facebook, because they simply don’t have the money for it and neither do their backers. Realistically, one can forget about the idea of democratically won elections, then. Elections seem likely to be won by those with the resources to do so, and no-one else. Useful article here https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/facebook-wins-democracy-loses.html
Carol,
If Corbyn and Labour do well out of the Brexit mess that would be a fair outcome given that they were not responsible for the stupid referendum to begin with.
Nile,
Re. “The unknown unknown of social media manipulation and algorithmically-targeted opinion engineering is known to be pro-Brexit ”
Putting the contradiction in terms aside, one of the unknowns is if this form of “social media manipulation” was present during the last GE and, if so, why it was so stunningly unsuccessful.
Your comment, like many since the referendum, seems to assume that Remain owns Labour and that Labour cannot be a real opposition unless it is decidedly pro-Remain. Other indicators appear to suggest that the situation isn’t quite so simple.
It could arguably be, Nile, that without stunningly successful social media manipulation the Tories would have been comprehensively demolished at the last election and Corbyn now in power.
Richard,
Looking at the outrageous, proposed Henry VIII powers and your concern “that there is not a hope that there is time in the day” to make the required law changes between now and March 2019?
It may be possible that this conundrum could be solved by the creation of an omnibus bill ( for those who may not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill) or, realistically, several omnibus bills that would have time to be made known and debated in their various committee and reading stages between now and 2019.
The omnibus option is not democratically ideal but it would be a lot better than the proposed “Henry” powers. It would at least ensure some level of exposure, debate and scrutiny and it would avoid the ridiculous proposed transfer of power from the legislature to the ministers.
I will take a look