The Bill to trigger Article 50, having passed it's second reading (I know, it felt like the first but that goes through without debate) has gone to its committee stage, when those who want to thwart the will of the people will try to get amendments tabled which would require, for example, the final deal with the EU to be put back to the House or to another referendum. As if a better deal could then be agreed. Of course, they know it can't, they just don't want it to happen and will try to put in trigger points to give themselves a second chance to thwart Brexit at a later date, even though the people voted for it in a referendum that was always stated to be a once off, final, no going back, no strings attached, done deal. We were asked to choose between in, not knowing for sure what that would mean going forward in terms of "more Europe", or out, very much not knowing what that meant.
We weren't asked to choose between hard, soft, stupid or any other form of Brexit, just as we weren't asked to choose between being in one type of Europe or another. Personally, I would have voted for being in a hugely reformed EU, but that wasn't and probably never could be an option, though ironically our exit might just make the eurocrats rethink the future. Indeed, there were some signs of it at the Malta summit, where there was talk of a "multi-speed union". This attractive kind of idea, with a core of very integrated countries and an outer ring of laggards was always pooh-poohed by EU leaders until our referendum*. But I wouldn't trust them and I'm not really interested in getting to the same end point of a fully integrated Europe at a slower speed.
Back in the Houses of Parliament, once the committee stage is complete, tomorrow will be the third reading, with voting over amendments. If approved by the Commons (which going by the second reading and tonight's vote you would expect) it goes to the Lords.
Then it will be time to Pannick, or at least follow Pannick. David Pannick QC is the eminent lawyer who took the case on whether the Commons needed to vote on Article 50 to court - all the way to the Supreme Court - and won. David Pannick knows more about stuff, especially the law, than the vast majority of people in the country. He is a member of the House of Lords. He voted Remain, albeit without enthusiasm, in the referendum. So how will he vote when the Article 50 bill comes to the Lords?
He will vote for triggering Article 50, even though he voted Remain. Why?
"I am an unenthusiastic supporter of the EU because I recognise there are large problems in terms of efficiency and of democratic deficit and problems of movement. I took the view that it was better to remain with some power to influence their decisions". (Not surprisingly, with that sharp legal mind he has nailed succinctly in two sentences much of the argument I groped for over several blogs).
But he will vote for Article 50 because, having cleared the legal issues, the people have spoken.
In an interesting interview** he was critical of the way the referendum was implemented. "Most ministers and MPs thought it was highly unlikely that people would vote to leave and therefore very little thought has been given as to what the consequences of leaving were, which is why the referendum bill was drafted in so limited a manner. It didn't address the consequences - constitutional and political. Since June we've been running to catch up with what it means".
I'd go further. Cameron and co deliberately made the choice as stark as possible and gave no credence to the credibility of leaving the EU because they thought it minimised the risk of an "out" vote. But of course, it didn't work. Actually, if you want the proponents of change to lose, the best way of doing it is to give a choice between several options and the status quo, thereby splitting the vote for change. (Don't laugh, I've seen this done in ballots). This, of course, is why Remainers want to put the negotiation to a vote, because they will split those who would take any Brexit from those who would prefer a pick and mix choice. And it's why the government is offering a much more restricted take it or leave it vote to the Commons after the negotiation.
This story has a way to go yet and it's already getting boring.
Incidentally, Pannick calls himself "Jew-ish", which I loved, because he feels part of Jewish culture while not being religious.
* EU back pedals on ever-closer union, Sunday Times, 5 Feb 2017
**He outgunned May in The Supreme Court but now he's backing Brexit, Sunday Times, 29 Jan 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment