Is Parliament Confused or Ossified?

 Ed Wilson, in a recent tweet (@eddwilson) asked if Parliament was too weak to stop this agonising stasis that sees us drifting (with what feels like gathering speed) towards a 'no deal Brexit'.

I suppose Parliament has the power it thinks it has, or believes it has, or can persuade us that it has; "Possunt, quia posse videntur".  So what is the problem?  

° Are MPs too polite? Are they deferring to the high office of the Queen's first minister? Of course it is a very difficult job, and perhaps we should let her have another shot? But no! This is too serious.

° Or perhaps parliamentary procedure has got ossified in its own tradition, and there is no-one to grab the mace (so to say). No-one dares to put forward a motion that could command a majority, because "it is the governments job to initiate legislation"? And the Government is waiting on the Prime Minister. 

° Or is Parliament simply confused, like the rest of us? The Prime Minister spent 2 years negotiating a deal, presented it to Parliament, which duly rejected it. Then the following Vote of Confidence was passed! But..... But surely.....? 

Was this craven? MPs voting simply to keep their seats, rather than on the issue of the deal, and the confidence of the House in that deal. Not quite! Because, of course, some MPs probably thought the deal too 'Brexity', while others thought it not 'Brexity' enough. 

I hope someone, before the 29th March, has the courage to propose that Article 50 be revoked, or delayed for a good long time, to give the country a chance to see where it is heading. 

--

Cawstein

An historian's view of Brexit.

The many views on Brexit.

    When the dust has settled, historians will begin to study and debate what happened in the momentous years 2016 — 2019, when Britain was racked by the question of whether or not to pull out of the European Union, and parties, elites, families torn apart.
    The referendum forced us into two great camps: that of 'Leavers', and 'Remainers'. But in truth there are many little camps, all rather isolated from each other, and in many cases having little internal communication. (In pubs and cafés, talking about Brexit is taboo for it is easy to cause offence, and impossible to sway minds. Apart from family and a handful of journalists and politicians, I know few who think as I do. I would love there to be a Remainer's café where I could hang out and discuss strategy.)

    Eventually a party will have to form, a coalescence of groups supporting a single course of action. In the meantime some think Brexit will make them better off, others think the opposite; some would cosy up to USA, others prefer Europe; some think that Britain can make better laws on its own, others that EU laws are better. 

    Let me try and define your particular group. Perhaps:

(1)  You wish to achieve maximum national and personal sovereignty, trading as and when circumstances allow, but contributing as little as possible to world peace, stability, or culture: "little Englanders".  (Perhaps Rees-Mogg?)

(2)  Or you want to "take back control", mistakenly believing that the European Court consistently or repeated over-rules British laws (actually 72 times out of 34,000 and then on good grounds http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf)

(3)  Perhaps you prefer an alignment with the USA, to one with the EU (dominated as it is by Germany and France).

(4)  Perhaps you think Brexit will allow Britain to trade freely, and gain an advantage over others by lowering standards or loosening restrictions. (Perhaps David Davis?)

(5)  Perhaps you think that Brexit could be a ticket to leadership of the Tory party. (Perhaps Boris Johnson?)

(6)  Perhaps you acknowledge that Brexit looks bad commercially, but believe that it is the duty of Government to deliver a form of Brexit that few (or no-one) voted for. (Perhaps Thersesa May?)

(7)  Perhaps you think that Britain is not ready for the degree of monetary and political integration that is the trend in Brussels, but would nevertheless vote Remain to retain our present position at the European table. (Perhaps George Monbiot.)

(8)  Or you think that Britain benefits financially and culturally from the EU, and you welcome both the supply of labour from the East and the meticulous law-making of 'Benelux'.

(9)  Perhaps you voted remain because you see a united Europe as a potential superpower more akin to British tastes and interests than the combative, exploitative, and increasingly isolated USA. 

(10) There will be those who see Britain as being (for at least the last 1,000 years) consistently and essentially a part of Europe, sharing its history, culture, religion, fighting its wars, exchanging monarchs, migrants and refugees, skills, trades, diseases. Admittedly, this point of view might be restricted to those who speak Latin or two or more of the core European languages. But King George I was a German, even if you did not know that.

    If I have not grasped your position on Europe I would be most grateful if you would tell me, so I can add it to my list. 

--
Cawstein

(cawstein@gmail.com)