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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As