The Guardian view on the Brexit debate: listen, Mrs May
|
Version 0 of 1. At last, parliament moves to the centre of the Brexit process. Tuesday is the first of two days’ debate on the bill to trigger article 50; after all the talk on the right of a coup, of power ebbing from Westminster, of a vacuum at the centre, MPs have a chance to get into the fight. Next week, there are three more days’ debate on amendments, before the bill goes to the Lords. It seems neither chamber will seriously try to get in the way of Theresa May’s self-imposed deadline of the end of March for triggering the two-year process of leaving. That is a mistake. For six months, parliament has struggled with the right response to a referendum that returned a result probably supported by fewer than 160 MPs. The vote was held under casually drafted regulations that ignored the importance of ensuring buy-in throughout the United Kingdom, which is why the prime minister was playing catch-up in Wales and Ireland today. Parliament was told officially that referendums are no more than an expression of political will. But both sides insisted that the result would be irrevocable, and, by saying it, made it so. Enfeebled by shock and uncertainty, and with no leave process mapped out, parliament failed to muster the resolve to force its way into the process of departure. Genuinely taken aback by the extent of discontent the referendum exposed, afraid of being portrayed as an obstacle to the will of the people, MPs’ lack of leadership has weakened parliament itself. After David Cameron resigned, it was clear that his successor’s mandate was to implement the result. The large majority of MPs who fear that leaving the EU will be a catastrophe for many of their constituents have been left in impotent submission to the sheer weight of the vote for the other side. Without Gina Miller and her co-applicants’ determination to fight for parliament in court, ministers might already be negotiating with complete disregard for it. Now Westminster has the chance to claw back its proper role in the most important event in recent British history. It must locate its spine. The government is too easily tempted to undermine MPs by negotiating directly with the leave constituency. The evidence for that is everywhere, in the attempt to avoid parliament entirely until the supreme court intervened, and in the few short days of debate now allowed to MPs. When parliament voted on the principle (only the principle) of joining the European Community in 1972, there were 10 days of debate on a detailed white paper, and the actual legislation took five months. Tuesday’s bill is a single page and the scope for amendments small. Labour, trying to shape the process over the next two years, has tabled a fistful aimed at securing protection of workers’ rights and common tax and evasion measures. Most significantly, it is determined to get a meaningful vote in parliament at the end of the process. Yet, regardless of the outcome, Labour MPs will be whipped to get the bill through. Perhaps these are wise objectives for a party trying to find common ground between its diehard leavers and its equally passionate remainers. All the same, there may be smarter tactical objectives that could pull in the kind of cross-party support that might make the government act more cautiously in the years ahead. For example, there are sensible reasons for a delay in triggering article 50, since between now and September – that is, for a quarter of the two-year negotiating period – the Netherlands, France and Germany, key players in the process, will be preoccupied with national elections. If parliament imposed a pause until the new European governments are in place, it would send an unmistakable signal about its seriousness of purpose. More important still is to find a way to frame the demand for a “meaningful vote” that mobilises doubters across the parties. The government should allow the last vote at Westminster to coincide with the European parliament’s ratification process, so that there is a possibility of constructive alliances. For generations, Europe has deeply divided people and parties. Parliament is the place not for capitulation but reconciliation. By the same token, Mrs May should acknowledge that having Westminster behind her would offer her a badly needed asset in her asymmetrical negotiation with Brussels. And in these anxious days, when Donald Trump treats the world’s fragile interconnections like a vicious crockery smash, and the European parliament negotiator Guy Verhofstadt suggests his real intention is to break up the EU, the prime minister should think hard before slamming the door on old friends. |