Brexit May-hem

Your Thurrock posted an article I wrote on Sunday night about Brexit and events in Parliament on Monday changed matters before the data stream was cold so I wrote a follow-up article based on the new situation.  As it hasn’t been posted on Your Thurrock yet, I thought I’d post it here.

If you’d like to see the first article you can see it here: http://www.yourthurrock.com/2018/12/10/blogspot-brexit-stand-edge-precipice/

 

Theresa’s Brexit May-hem

They say that a week is a long time in politics but it seems in these febrile times that a couple of hours is a long time.  Mere hours after sending in my last blog things changed and, by the end of the day yesterday (10^th December), the Brexit soap opera that has plagued the UK for over two years got even more bizarre and worrying.

In a cowardly move to try to save face Theresa May, without prior notice or giving Parliament a say and after many assurances that it would not happen, decided to postpone the ‘meaningful vote’ on her Withdrawal Agreement.  She was forced to admit that she would lose the vote, stating that “if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin”.  She went on to try to justify her cowardice by saying that she didn’t want to “divide the House at this time”.

Speaker of the House, John Bercow, was not pulling any punches when he made clear the displeasure of the House over the postponement of the ‘meaningful vote’: “Halting the debate, after no fewer than 164 colleagues have taken the trouble to contribute, will be thought by many Members of this House to be deeply discourteous. Indeed, in the hours since news of this intention emerged, many colleagues from across the House have registered that view to me in the most forceful terms.”

Bercow continued: “Having taken the best procedural advice, colleagues should be informed that there are two ways of doing this. The first and, in democratic terms, the infinitely preferable way is for a Minister to move at the outset of the debate that the debate be adjourned. This will give the House the opportunity to express its view in a vote on whether or not it wishes the debate to be brought to a premature and inconclusive end. I can reassure Ministers that I would be happy to accept such a motion so that the House can decide.

“The alternative is for the Government unilaterally to decline to move today’s business, which means not only that the House is deprived of its opportunity to vote upon the substance of the debate tomorrow but that it is given no chance to express its view today on whether the debate should or should not be allowed to continue.

“I politely suggest that, in any courteous, respectful and mature environment, allowing the House to have its say on this matter would be the right and, dare I say it, the obvious course to take. Let us see if those who have assured this House and the public, over and over again, that this supremely important vote is going to take place tomorrow, without fail, wish to rise to the occasion.”

Judging from the Hansard coverage (from which some of the quotes used in this article derive), no Minister rose to the occasion and, following some short discussion of the fact that many MPs required assurances over the so-called Northern Ireland ‘backstop’, Theresa May told the House that “We are deferring the vote and I will be going to seek those assurances”.

In going down the less democratic route and postponing the ‘meaningful vote’ in such a manner Theresa May showed her contempt for Parliament less than a week after her government was found in contempt of Parliament.  She compounded this flagrant attack on democracy by not providing any details of when the debate would continue or a date for the vote.

In this commentator’s opinion Theresa May should have a motion of contempt of Parliament against her but that’s not in my power.

However, Theresa May did succeed in uniting much of the House when Jeremy Corbyn proposed a debate on whether Parliament should approve of the delay in the debate and ‘meaningful vote’ as every Labour MP stood in support of Corbyn’s motion and, most embarrassingly for May, so did many Conservative MPs.

Corbyn made a passionate speech on how the public might view the government, stating: “The public will look at the behaviour of this Government and how they treat their democratically elected representatives with despair. Our constitution works on the basis that Governments control the business of the House because they have a majority in the House. The Government appear to be avoiding a vote on a change of business because they fear that they do not command a majority. We have no indication when the debate will be resumed or completed; neither does it seem reasonable that the Government will wait until Thursday before confirming the business of the final sitting week before Christmas”.

Corbyn concluded: “The Government’s incompetence cannot be used as an excuse to threaten the country with no deal. It is vital that the Government treat Parliament with respect, honour the terms of the original business of the House motion as agreed and therefore seek the approval of the House, not act by Prime Ministerial fiat, to defer the meaningful vote.”

With such support across the House Corbyn’s motion was carried and today (11^th December) will see the debate on whether Parliament will approve of the delay in the Brexit debate and whether Theresa May will get another metaphorical black eye to go with the one she got after losing three votes in a row last week, the first time a government had done so in decades, and having her government found in contempt of Parliament, the first time ever in history.

The fact that no date for the continuation of the Brexit deal debate was given is especially worrying as, according to the House of Commons Twitter account, the date of the ‘meaningful vote’ could in practice be “be 28 March as matters stand”.  This would be subverting the democratic sovereignty of Parliament in order to push through Theresa May’s lame duck deal and leave no time for Parliament to amend the deal.  Whether Dominic Grieve’s amendment designed to prevent a ‘no deal’ scenario could be enacted in this case is anyone’s guess.

Theresa May is now rushing around trying to get a better deal with the EU despite the fact that she has already stated on numerous occasions that this is the best deal she could get and the fact that the EU aren’t willing to negotiate any further.  Donald Tusk said that the EU “will not renegotiate the deal, including the backstop, but we are ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification”.

It would be a major understatement to say that Theresa May has very few options moving forward especially if the vote on today’s debate goes against her.  Again, no one should have any sympathy for Theresa May because her incompetence and errors of judgement have brought her to this point.  She has had too many chances to do the job she has vowed to do but has allowed her arrogance and hubris to get in the way.  She called a snap election that eroded her Parliamentary majority.  She entered into a deal with the DUP to prop up her minority government and, in doing so, gave them proportionately more power than they would have had if the Conservatives had retained their majority.  She allowed votes to go on in the absence of Conservative MPs which would have failed if they had been there to vote them down.

Ultimately, the Conservatives (and Theresa May in particular) have brought about this dire situation.  They didn’t need the help of opposition parties to make a mess of Brexit, they were completely capable of doing that themselves.  Unfortunately, they could just destroy the UK in the process and that’s something you should all be worried about, however you voted in the referendum.