This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/fight-parliament-democracy-power-brexit
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| This epic fight in parliament could lead to a new, better democracy | This epic fight in parliament could lead to a new, better democracy |
| (30 days later) | |
| Revolutions do not always take place violently in public squares, in the streets around the bourses or in front of the palaces. Sometimes they take place quietly, slowly, unobserved and indoors. Sometimes they even happen without the revolutionaries themselves quite understanding what they are doing that is so transformative. | Revolutions do not always take place violently in public squares, in the streets around the bourses or in front of the palaces. Sometimes they take place quietly, slowly, unobserved and indoors. Sometimes they even happen without the revolutionaries themselves quite understanding what they are doing that is so transformative. |
| It may seem hard to believe, and there is undoubtedly a seasonal element of hope exceeding expectation in saying this, but something of this kind may be happening in front of our Brexit-battered eyes. As the Brexit argument grinds on into Christmas and the new year, we may in fact be living through the start of a quiet constitutional revolution. | It may seem hard to believe, and there is undoubtedly a seasonal element of hope exceeding expectation in saying this, but something of this kind may be happening in front of our Brexit-battered eyes. As the Brexit argument grinds on into Christmas and the new year, we may in fact be living through the start of a quiet constitutional revolution. |
| Theresa May makes plea for Labour to back her Brexit deal | Theresa May makes plea for Labour to back her Brexit deal |
| Here’s why. Westminster’s Christmas party game is hunt the majority. Around 320 votes are needed for a majority in the Commons on any Brexit issue. With 90 of her 316 Tory MPs against her and the DUP opposing it too, Theresa May is well short of 320 for her Brexit deal. But there isn’t a majority for any other proposition that the government might bring forward either. | Here’s why. Westminster’s Christmas party game is hunt the majority. Around 320 votes are needed for a majority in the Commons on any Brexit issue. With 90 of her 316 Tory MPs against her and the DUP opposing it too, Theresa May is well short of 320 for her Brexit deal. But there isn’t a majority for any other proposition that the government might bring forward either. |
| There are, however, latent majorities within the Commons for quite a range of Brexit propositions. A majority of MPs oppose a no-deal exit. A majority could be found for a better deal than May’s. And there may be a majority, when push comes to shove in January, for a second referendum of some kind. | There are, however, latent majorities within the Commons for quite a range of Brexit propositions. A majority of MPs oppose a no-deal exit. A majority could be found for a better deal than May’s. And there may be a majority, when push comes to shove in January, for a second referendum of some kind. |
| The question facing Britain, therefore, is how can one or other of those latent majorities be set free so that it can impose itself on the parliamentary decision-making process? Here, there are two structural problems – and it is here that the quiet revolution, if it is to happen, may be gathering momentum. | The question facing Britain, therefore, is how can one or other of those latent majorities be set free so that it can impose itself on the parliamentary decision-making process? Here, there are two structural problems – and it is here that the quiet revolution, if it is to happen, may be gathering momentum. |
| The first of these problems is party politics. The two main parties are split on Brexit. Their respective factions could, in theory, cooperate between themselves, and with the minor parties, to produce 320 and more on any of the Brexit issues mentioned above. But Britain’s inherited political culture is destructively partisan. The pressure to vote with party, even it involves doing the wrong thing, remains strong, and the penalties for not doing so are great. Solving Brexit in parliament therefore requires either that one main party changes in order to cooperate with the other, or that enough MPs from one or both break with party in order to achieve the same objective. | The first of these problems is party politics. The two main parties are split on Brexit. Their respective factions could, in theory, cooperate between themselves, and with the minor parties, to produce 320 and more on any of the Brexit issues mentioned above. But Britain’s inherited political culture is destructively partisan. The pressure to vote with party, even it involves doing the wrong thing, remains strong, and the penalties for not doing so are great. Solving Brexit in parliament therefore requires either that one main party changes in order to cooperate with the other, or that enough MPs from one or both break with party in order to achieve the same objective. |
| This is a big ask. Yet the two main parties are miserable and degenerative places right now. The pro-EU Tories are held prisoner by the nationalist right wing. Labour is paralysed by its leftwing leadership’s reluctance to lead in a pro-European direction. The consequence, as my colleague, Rafael Behr, put it this week, is that there is a new political geography within the parliamentary chamber, in which informal coalitions are increasingly active across party boundaries. It is surely not entirely starry-eyed to conclude there will come a point when the determination to prevent the damage of Brexit will outweigh the loyalty to an inert party system that is blocking the way to a solution. As ever, water will find a way to the sea. | This is a big ask. Yet the two main parties are miserable and degenerative places right now. The pro-EU Tories are held prisoner by the nationalist right wing. Labour is paralysed by its leftwing leadership’s reluctance to lead in a pro-European direction. The consequence, as my colleague, Rafael Behr, put it this week, is that there is a new political geography within the parliamentary chamber, in which informal coalitions are increasingly active across party boundaries. It is surely not entirely starry-eyed to conclude there will come a point when the determination to prevent the damage of Brexit will outweigh the loyalty to an inert party system that is blocking the way to a solution. As ever, water will find a way to the sea. |
| This brings us to the second and less widely understood barrier to progress – parliament itself. Parliament is often discussed, even after angry scenes like those after prime minister’s questions today, in somewhat idealised terms, as the unique and sovereign decision-making body in the British constitution. But that is careless. It could be taken to imply that parliament is a collective of independent people, like a panel of judges. That isn’t true. | This brings us to the second and less widely understood barrier to progress – parliament itself. Parliament is often discussed, even after angry scenes like those after prime minister’s questions today, in somewhat idealised terms, as the unique and sovereign decision-making body in the British constitution. But that is careless. It could be taken to imply that parliament is a collective of independent people, like a panel of judges. That isn’t true. |
| In the classical statements about parliament by AV Dicey and others, what is sovereign is not parliament itself but the crown in parliament. It’s a vital distinction. The crown is represented within parliament by the Queen’s ministers, who form the government and propose the laws that parliament then makes. There is therefore an inbuilt advantage for ministers and an inbuilt tension between ministerial power and any idealised notion of the sovereign Commons. This is highlighted when there is a minority government in a hung parliament, as there has been since 2017. It has been strikingly illustrated throughout the autumn by the explicit tensions – which we saw again today – between ministers and the Speaker, John Bercow. | In the classical statements about parliament by AV Dicey and others, what is sovereign is not parliament itself but the crown in parliament. It’s a vital distinction. The crown is represented within parliament by the Queen’s ministers, who form the government and propose the laws that parliament then makes. There is therefore an inbuilt advantage for ministers and an inbuilt tension between ministerial power and any idealised notion of the sovereign Commons. This is highlighted when there is a minority government in a hung parliament, as there has been since 2017. It has been strikingly illustrated throughout the autumn by the explicit tensions – which we saw again today – between ministers and the Speaker, John Bercow. |
| The people can prevent a no-deal Brexit – with a general strike | Jolyon Maugham | The people can prevent a no-deal Brexit – with a general strike | Jolyon Maugham |
| Throughout the Brexit process, there have been many moments when parliament has asserted itself against ministers. These have included the original article 50 vote, the demand for the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal and the publication of the attorney general’s legal advice. Most recently, parliament has been searching for ways to bring forward the vote on May’s deal and has been looking for means of putting Brexit alternatives, including the second referendum, into binding form. | Throughout the Brexit process, there have been many moments when parliament has asserted itself against ministers. These have included the original article 50 vote, the demand for the meaningful vote on the Brexit deal and the publication of the attorney general’s legal advice. Most recently, parliament has been searching for ways to bring forward the vote on May’s deal and has been looking for means of putting Brexit alternatives, including the second referendum, into binding form. |
| In every case, however, these efforts have run up against existing ministerial powers. Some, such as the article 50 vote and the meaningful vote, defied ministerial claims to exert crown prerogative powers over foreign policy and treaty powers. Others, such as the attorney general’s advice, overturned long-established governmental practice. If parliament also overturns May’s withdrawal agreement, as it well could, it would be the first parliamentary overthrow of a treaty since 1864, the Hansard Society said last week. The search for new ways of putting Brexit issues on the agenda confronts the power of the whips. Any new referendum would be ploughing new constitutional ground, too, especially if it involves an Irish-style “citizens’ assembly” stage. | In every case, however, these efforts have run up against existing ministerial powers. Some, such as the article 50 vote and the meaningful vote, defied ministerial claims to exert crown prerogative powers over foreign policy and treaty powers. Others, such as the attorney general’s advice, overturned long-established governmental practice. If parliament also overturns May’s withdrawal agreement, as it well could, it would be the first parliamentary overthrow of a treaty since 1864, the Hansard Society said last week. The search for new ways of putting Brexit issues on the agenda confronts the power of the whips. Any new referendum would be ploughing new constitutional ground, too, especially if it involves an Irish-style “citizens’ assembly” stage. |
| At times like this, the US system of separating the legislature from the executive looks enticingly sensible. Yet it is not necessary to overthrow every British constitutional convention in order to ensure fairer and more logical parliamentary process. What is necessary, however, is a sustained diminution of the power of ministers and party whips over agenda-setting and law-making. One solution would be to strengthen existing backbench business processes to ensure that they take precedence when a certain threshold of support has been reached. Parliament has not yet taken control over Brexit. It may fail to do so. But this is the battle that we are now witnessing. It matters who wins, not just because it will shape the outcome of Brexit, the most important issue of our era, but because it has the potential to radicalise our parliamentary democracy. If it succeeds, it will do so at the expense of party and will involve the weakening of ministerial (and thus, in theory, crown) powers. These are objectives that any independently minded democrat should support. We have a dog in this fight. | At times like this, the US system of separating the legislature from the executive looks enticingly sensible. Yet it is not necessary to overthrow every British constitutional convention in order to ensure fairer and more logical parliamentary process. What is necessary, however, is a sustained diminution of the power of ministers and party whips over agenda-setting and law-making. One solution would be to strengthen existing backbench business processes to ensure that they take precedence when a certain threshold of support has been reached. Parliament has not yet taken control over Brexit. It may fail to do so. But this is the battle that we are now witnessing. It matters who wins, not just because it will shape the outcome of Brexit, the most important issue of our era, but because it has the potential to radicalise our parliamentary democracy. If it succeeds, it will do so at the expense of party and will involve the weakening of ministerial (and thus, in theory, crown) powers. These are objectives that any independently minded democrat should support. We have a dog in this fight. |
| • Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist | • Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| House of Commons | House of Commons |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version