Skip to main content

Parliamentary sovereignty is central to our democracy.

Perhaps there was a feeling that the enormity of the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal would bring sense to prevail. What politician would purposively, knowingly wreck the economy? The warning signs were there. Brexiteers in the Tory party were becoming more strident as they were gaining more hold on the Tory party. They now sit round the cabinet table. They are making the decisions and they control parliament. They are convinced by their own rhetoric. Even now, when all the signs are against it, many believe 'sense will prevail', that it is all tactics and there will be a deal. But whose 'sense' is it that will prevail?

Proroguing parliament removes the political machinery for holding the government to account at a time when it makes decisions that will affect our future for generations to come. In doing so they turn our democracy on its head. We had a parliamentary democracy. Today, our government is riding roughshod over it. Our representatives are no longer able to represent us.

Whatever views are held on Brexit itself, voters should wake up to the enormity of what is happening.

No law is being broken. Constitutional procedures are being followed, yet a minority government without a mandate is stopping parliament from holding it to account. This is a travesty of our constitutional arrangements. It takes advantage of our unwritten constitution to undermine it.

Some still believe this is a tactical manoeuvre to convince the EU to give way on the backstop arrangements and do a deal. Even if this were so, it is a dangerous move. It sets a dangerous precedent and takes power from our elected representatives.

We are told 'the people voted'. They did not vote for parliament to be stripped of its power to hold the government to account. On the contrary. The sovereignty of our parliament was a significant argument in the referendum. Those who have campaigned against British membership of the EU over many years have argued for our parliamentary democracy and against what they saw as the removal of powers from our parliament. So nobody could have been voting in the referendum to allow a minority Tory government to strip parliament of that power.

"Taking back control" was a powerful message. It still is. We must take back control from a reckless government and give power back to our elected representatives. Parliamentary sovereignty is central to our democracy and our constitutional arrangements.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...