The decision of the british government once more to show its contempt for parliament and democracy has been shown today. Having continually failed to get even close to winning support for its withdrawal agreement, and looking set to lose any other vote on it, as the DUP and Tory Brextremeists lined up with opposition MP's to reject it, the government has tried what amounts to another trick, to force parliament into a corner.
The Withdrawal Agreement as the Prime Minister has always said, is inseparable from the political statement that goes with it. Now, in order to try to get the Withdrawal Agreement passed, so as to prevent Britain from participating in the European Parliament elections in May, the government has proposed splitting the two parts of the deal, and to have parliament vote tomorrow on just the Withdrawal Agreement, separating from it the political statement.
As the Shadow Leader of the House has set out, to do so is to ask parliament to break the law, because the law as set out means that the two elements cannot be separated. In constitionali language this means that the government is acting ultra vires (beyond its powers) because the government cannot pass act so as to ask someone to act illegally. In the United States, the Supreme Court exists to prevent such abuse of power, as it did by striking down Trump's orders to prevent muslims entering the country. In Britain, we saw something similar when the government's attempts to bypass parliament by seeking to undertake the EU withdrawal negotiations without any role for parliament, or legislative approval, were ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court, when challenged.
The government's contempt of parliament, here, and its preparedness to itself ask parliament to break the law is yet another twist in the ratchet of the government towards the introduction of some kind of authoritarian Bonapartist regime. Bill Cash, who is not a member of the government, but who is part of the right-wing, Brextremist faction that has held the government hostage over the last three years, even yesterday, on TV, referred back to the situation in the 1650's, when Britain's own first Bonapartist, Oliver Cromwell, marched into parliament and disbanded it by armed force.
Britain is entering truly dangerous times. The first acts of Bonapartists is to increase their authoritarianism, to seek to remove any vrestighe of democratic control and oversight over their activities, and to mobilise the mob against their political opponents, all features of what has been seen over the last three years. The next stage is for the Bonapartists themselves to begin to act illegally, having removed the potential for any restraint on their illegal activities, as order increasingly gives way to disorder, and arbitrariness, as the prelude to the break down of the rule of law.
Its possible, as with Gina Miller's case against the government in 2017, that someone may go to court to get an injunction against the government's attempt to act in a manner that is ultra vires. Generally, the courts do not interfere with parliamentary business, as parliament is sovereign, and determines its own business. However, as the Miller case showed that is not absolute. The Speaker, when questioned on the matter, correctly stated that it is not his responsibility to pronounce upon the legality or otherwise of motions brought before the house, only to pronounce upon whether they comply with the standing order of the house, which the government's motion does. However, clear in his statement is the fact that that does not mean that the court's might not rule, before tomorrow that the government's motion is itself ultra vires.
The government is clearly attempting a contemptuous trick. It hopes that by separating the Withdrawal Agreement from the political statement, it can obtain a majority. That would mean it believes that it would comply with the EU's requirement that the UK must approve the Withdrawal Agreement by tomorrow, in order to extend the Article 50 period to May 22nd., and to avoid holding European Parliament elections. But, if the UK then does not hold those elections, the government is trying to back parliament into corner, because it would mean that a Brexit deal would have to be agreed by May 22nd, or else Britain would collapse out of the EU on that date. However, if parliament rejects the government motion, that would mean no extension of Article 50 being April 12th., and the UK collapsing out of the EU on that date, because the Withdrawal Agreement itself could not be submitted again to parliament, having been defeated.
This is just another version of the government's attempts to bully parliament into voting for May's deal. But, for the reasons set out above, it is not only likely to fail, but it could easily backfire on the government. If the government loses the vote, then the only alternative to crashing out on April 12th will be to revoke Article 50. had Labour whipped behind the SNP proposal for revocation last night, in the event that no deal was reached by 5th April, it could well have secured the largest number of votes. All those right-wing Labour MP's that have been giving comfort to the Tories, like Caroline Flint, John Mann, and Gareth Snell, should now see the kind of people they have been lining up with, in their quest to hold on to their seats by appeasing bigots. It should be a wake up call to them and others to mobilise to stop this right-wing authoritarian regime from proceeding further in its quest to undermine parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment