It seems to me forcing through hard brexit would require more courage than (simply?) stepping back and saying no, we won’t go over the cliff at this present time, and we shall put our people first and work out what the hell we want, set our house in order.
I think cancelling Brexit would be the most common-sense move, followed by a legitimate and honest nationwide grand debat so people are actually listened to.
I’d fly back just to participate.
spiffy
3908
Mulitple Tory mp’s have said No Deal is very unlikely. I think they all know that if it happens, and lots of people get screwed (40%+ more for groceries, or else reducing tariffs and having the entire farming economy take a massive hit, etc), they all lose their jobs and we’re dunked into political mayhem anyways… I don’t think there’s much apetite for that, other than the rich cats who make their billions on their bets and retreat to their bunkers whilst the shit happens. So even though it feels likely, I doubt we get there other than so many misteps cause the fall by accident (incompetence).
I tend to agree with your political analysis, but the worry for me is that we’re now in an Article 50 extension which is almost certainly too short to resolve things (unless some miracle lines up enough votes for May’s deal). So all it takes is one member of the EU27 to get tired of delays or pissed off about something and it’s No Deal Brexit by default.
Hard Brexit doesn’t need to be forced through. It just happens.
So hard Brexit it is.
I personally think May wll pass her deal when the hard Brexiters fold.
Requires DUP support too. It is possible, but it’s never going to be anything but close. I’m not going to call it.
draxen
3913
I’m not sure how good a source this is but…
magnet
3914
Papageno already addressed this, but just for perspective:
George Washington died at 67.
Thomas Jefferson died at 83.
James Madison died at 83.
Benjamin Franklin died at 84.
John Adams died at 91.
Basically, if you could survive into adulthood then your odds of living to 60+ were almost as good a few hundred years ago as they are today.
Aceris
3915
The saddest thing about Bercow’s behaviour, ostensibly to hold the government to account, is that it might, by making the speaker a partisan role, in the future give governments unprecedented power to control the business of the house, in a similar way to the US House of Representatives.
Everything up to now could certainly be justified by erring in favour of holding the government to account, but the clear double standards on “notwithstanding” motions goes too far, by denying parliament the ability to set its own rules.
What double standard do you see? (real question)
Biased source (peoples vote campaign) but this is mildly useful.
Government’s ability to control the business of the House has, until very recently, basically been untrammelled.
Aceris
3919
He won’t allow MV3 even with a “notwithstanding standard practice” enabling motion, but he permitted exactly such wording in the Business motion for this afternoon to allow indicative votes on ideas that have already been rejected.
Indeed. I take it as Bercow more or less being backed into a corner. His sharp criticisms are borne out of a frustration of a government intent on breaking the rules. He already let them have two votes on the darn thing a decision I think he already regrets.
Aceris
3921
I think I used the wrong wording, but Boothroyd was pretty well respected for allowing backbenchers to hold the government to account, for example.
If a partisan speaker becomes the norm, those days are over.
Partisan is definitely the wrong word, as he’s not been pro-Labour. I think there’s a good case that he’s tilted the scales against (hard) Brexit, perhaps improperly, though it is also in the context of a government which has tried to run roughshod over the House (and the judiciary) on the biggest constitutional issue in generations. Ultimately it is a matter for his electorate and the House to decide.
But I just don’t see much long term risk in it, as, like I say, it’s not like the speaker has been a meaningful bar to the government setting the agenda in the past. It’s precisely because it’s so unusual that there’s such a furore about it.
Aceris
3923
I’m specifically drawing a distinction between what he’s done previously, which has all been about holding the government to account, and what he has done today, which is about frustrating the government even if it’s against the will of the house.
And I guarantee you that a large number MPs are now thinking:
a) Having the speaker on their side is fantastic and they want more.
b) Having the speaker against them is incredibly frustrating so they need to make sure the speaker is on their side.
What today’s decision did was removed even the cursory pretence of evenhandedness.
a) The speaker is supposed to be partisan for the House, in that sense. He’s not supposed to be evenhanded with the government. He should follow the House’s rules, certainly, but he’s not neutral in that sense.
b) How is it against the will of the House? They voted in favour of the business motion.
I’m not convinced “partisan” is a fair characterisation. But I also recognise I have trouble separating my own biases from my assessment.
Part of this probably comes down to style though. I can imagine Speaker Weatherill making the same ruling while sounding detached and patrician, and as a result probably raising fewer hackles.
But we’re in a really unusual situation. Where a majority in the Commons is repeatedly opposed to the government, but without a VoNC bringing the government down. This speaks to much earlier Parliamentary history when the Speaker speaks to the Crown on behalf of the Commons.
I was recently reading the Churchill biography covering the early WWII period, and the Hansard record of the Narvik debate. In a time of national crisis Chamberlain won a VoNC by 281 to 200, and still considered that a bad enough result that he considered his government to have lost the confidence of the Commons and was obliged to resign. Compare that version of Parliamentary norms to today’s!
Now we have a government that loses two votes on a subject that’s of extreme national importance, is central to its manifesto commitments, and is the one key policy of its Prime Minister. But resignation isn’t on the agenda, nor is changing any part of the PM’s agenda or goals. Just a bloody-minded attempt to force through the same deal on a third vote. It’s probably not literally unprecedented, but I can’t think of an equivalent action by a modern PM, not even Margaret Thatcher, the epitome of political bloodymindedness.
My point being, the Speaker is being forced into extraordinary rulings by a government behaving in an extraordinary way. Is a slippery slope argument appropriate here?
To be fair, May won her vote of no confidence (two, if you count the 1922 Committe) as well.
