Thursday 26 September 2019

Yesterday in Parliament


You would think that, on the first day of its historic unrevokedness the debates in the House of Commons would  be statesmanlike and of lofty constitutional erudition.  Instead, by all accounts, it was a day of rudeness, squabbling and name-calling such as would  disgrace a school playground.

By accident or design, MPs have succeeded in changing the reporting of the debate from one of high constitutional significance to  to one of scorn for and condemnation of politicians.

On Newsnight  last night Labour MP Barry Gardiner claimed that Mr Johnson's inflammatory language was deliberate and designed indeed to "change the subject" from  the embarrassing failure of the government's policies to  "the general state of politics."  A presumably impartial commenter on this morning's Radio 4 Today programme took a similar view - that the government front bench were  "deliberately provoking the opposition to change the debate."

I suspect this is not chance but that  the hand of Dominic Cummings lies behind it. 

Another ploy seems to be to discredit the present House of Commons.  The Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, instead of explaining the reasoning that led him to advise that the prorogation of parliament was legitimate, instead scorned the parliament as "dead" and "without legitimacy."

This is nonsense.  This parliament was "refreshed by contact with the electorate" only two years ago and is less than halfway through its term.  The election that formed it was called by the Conservatives for their own ends. Hard lines on them that things didn't work out as they expected, but they must live with the results of their own folly.

The  Opposition parties are right in their refusal to let the Tories off the hook by calling another election (which would in all probability  produce yet another Commons in which no party had a majority).

Instead it is the duty of this Parliament  to disentangle the Brexit knot by "quiet calm deliberation." (Gilbert and Sullivan got so  much right even 100+ years ago).

How about this for reasoning?

1.  The overwhelming majority on all sides recognise that to leave the EU with no deal would be highly damaging, and in any case parliament has already declared it to be illegal.
2.  We could possibly leave on a minor variation of Mrs May's deal, but that has ben rejected three times, so is really a non-starter.
3.  We could follow Labour's present official course, which would  be, after an election,  to negotiate a better deal.  It is unlikely, though not impossible, that Labour  could win enough seats to form a minority government and achieve this, but their published aims include remaining in the single market and customs union - otherwise known as Brexit in name only, or BINO.  That is, leaving the EU but still obeying most of the rules without having any say in making them, so what's the point?
4.  So the best thing to do is to Revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU.
5.  To calm any resulting  agitation this should be accompanied by a sympathetic and reasoned explanation as to why it is sensible  and democratic to set aside the result of the referendum, along with  concrete and calculated proposals to ease the factors (unnecessary government austerity, punishing of the poor, neglect of the regions etc) which have lead to the discontent which lay  behind the Brexit vote.

QED

10 comments:

  1. You would think that, on the first day of its historic unrevokedness the debates in the House of Commons would be statesmanlike and of lofty constitutional erudition.

    You could only possibly think that if you knew absolutely nothing about British politics over the last five centuries!

    How about this for reasoning?

    How about it? It's one of the most patronising things I have ever read, and after the last few years, that's saying something.

    'To calm any resulting agitation this should be accompanied by a sympathetic and reasoned explanation…'

    What do you think the electorate are — screaming toddlers who need to be soothed by their parents going, 'there, there' until they realise that they don't really want what they are asking for?

    Did you ever consider that people voted to leave the EU, not because of 'unnecessary government austerity, punishing of the poor, neglect of the regions etc', but simply because they wanted to leave the EU?

    That maybe people were just honestly, and with full consideration, answering the question that was put in front of them?

    Has that possibility really never occured?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you know as well as I do that people do not always vote solely on what politicians would like an election to be about. The most obvious example is local government elections , when it is quite usual for some voters to use the opportunity to take a swipe at candidates of whichever party is in power nationally regardless of the records and policies of the locals.

      There can be no doubt that some of the vote for Brexit was a protest vote against national policies and local neglect. Politics, and voting behaviour, are by no means the black and white issues you like, in this instance, to pretend.

      Delete
    2. From my long-ago Politics course at Manchester I can remember that referendums were much frowned upon. In theory it sounds like a great idea to give the public a chance to express their views on a "single issue", but it is often seen as an opportunity to give the government a kick up the backside on unrelated matters. (For the record, Mrs Thatcher wasn't a fun of referendums either, thinking that they were instruments for the use of dictators like Mussolini.)

      Delete
    3. I note you don't deny the main point: that you're being incredibly patronising in implying that people who voted Leave are like children who must be managed, 'calmed' and made to understand that they can't have what they want because it would be bad for them, rather than rational adults whose views deserve to be respected and (given they were in the majority) enacted.

      This is why Boris is going to win a landslide in the upcoming election.

      Delete
    4. Clearly you're not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan.The "calm" comes from the G & S quote "Quiet calm deliberation disentangles every knot." There's nothing patronising about it: it is common sense.

      Incidentally, it seems to me that the language provocation has now moved a step further, as Cummings et al are now predicting riots if Brexit is delayed further or there is a a People's Vote. Predicting riots goes half way to legitimising them, and is the oppositve of responsible politics.

      Delete
    5. Clearly you're not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan.The "calm" comes from the G & S quote "Quiet calm deliberation disentangles every knot." There's nothing patronising about it: it is common sense.

      But the 'knot' you're talking about untangling is how to make people accept that they are not getting what they voted for, isn't it? And your solution for doing that is to give them a 'sympathetic and reasoned explanation' as to why they were wrong to vote the way they did.

      You're basically telling them they didn't understand what they were voting for, and that if they did properly understand, they would have voted the way you did, instead.

      You really, honestly, don't see how that's incredibly patronising?

      Because I promise you, the people you'll be trying to give your 'sympathetic and reasoned explanation' to — me among them — certainly do.

      Delete
    6. Keynes is famously supposed* to have said: "When my information changes I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" After three years we are now in a position to compare the promises made in the referendum campaign with he information that has emerged since. That is what requires a reasoned and sympathetic explanation.
      * What Keynes, or maybe Samuelson, or possibly even someone else, actually said is discussed here:

      https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

      Delete
    7. After three years we are now in a position to compare the promises made in the referendum campaign with he information that has emerged since

      Nothing new has emerged since. Remainers are still telling exactly the same tales of looming economic catastrophe if we leave that they were during the referendum. I thought they were talking rubbish then. No new information has emerged to suggest that I was wrong to do so.

      And even if such information had emerged, the economic sphere has always been of secondary importance to sovereignty and national pride, and again, the situation there is exactly the same as it was in 2016.

      Keynes may have changed his mind when the information changed. But when the information stays the same, my mind stays the same.

      So your 'reasoned and sympathetic explanation' is just going to be you explaining to people that they didn't understand then, and they don't understand now, but you understand what they need better than they do, so they should just trust you to do the right thing for them. Isn't it?

      Do you really think many of them will listen to you tell them calmly and politely how you know better than them what they should have voted for?

      Delete
  2. Any claim that it really was about restoring the rule of parliament and the right of British courts to decide on British law has been exploded by brexiteers contempt for both shown vey clearly this week

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tes indeed. More and more of the charade is revealed day by day.

      Delete