16th March 2023
Yesterday this blog averred that Brexit so far has been about giving power to Whitehall than giving power to Westminster.
Ministers since 2016 have been using the rhetoric of “taking back control” so as to make government less accountable to parliament.
And today: a worked example:
The vote on Wednesday is specifically “on a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Stormont Brake in the Windsor Framework".
But No10 said it will be treated as the moment that MPs deliver their verdict on the overall deal.
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) March 16, 2023
Here is No10 confirming Wednesday's vote is the vote on the overall Brexit deal.
PM's spox: "We said Parliament would have its say on the framework. This vote honours the Prime Minister’s commitment to provide MPs with the opportunity to vote on the new arrangements."
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) March 16, 2023
You may have strong views about Brexit, and you may have strong views about the Windsor Framework.
(This blog has set out why, although the Windsor Framework is a Good Thing, the supposed ‘Stormont Brake’ is more likely to be an ornament than an instrument.)
Yet sensible people would want the Windsor Framework to be be properly considered and scrutinised by parliament.
For that is what sovereign parliaments should be able to do.
But, no.
The government is not giving parliament any adequate opportunity to examine the Windsor Framework.
This is more government by fiat, by ministerial decision.
You may think that is a Good Thing: that our government should be all-powerful between general elections with no or almost no accountability to parliament.
But, if so, do not pretend to others that Brexit was ever about giving power back to the Westminster parliament.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
People kept saying that Brexit was to restore ‘sovereignty’ , but I don’t think that Parliamentary sovereignty was ever what was intended by anyone.
There seems to be very little understanding of parliamentary sovereignty among the generality of voters and attempts to explain how our current government is busy undoing the supremacy of the Legislature over the Executive, achieved initially by a civil war culminating in the execution of the monarch and established over the following 400 or so years are met with a complete lack of interest. . They are, in the main, convinced that the party of government should do whatever they want to do by virtue of their majority and don’t see any value in (or need for) scrutiny. Some are not terribly keen on Opposition, either..
It’s not really surprising, though. I only have a simplistic idea of it because it was part of the Politics part of my degree. It’s rarely taught at a lower level.
Prior to the referendum it seemed very clear that brexiters were relying on widespread political ignorance of both the UK’s & EU’s systems of governance & in capitalising on greener fields Vs “project fear” succeeded with their takeover.
Brexit might have meant (a meaningless) “restoration of sovereignty” to some but to brexiters, brexit was about seizing control of the process of government. This was demonstrated subsequently by persuading parliament there was an urgency which demanded minimal oversight (if any) and wholesale use of Henry VIII powers. Unsurprisingly it continues with this latest example of the new NIP framework; with the best of intentions of course…
Not very interested in the Stormont Brake but I did take a look at some of the written proceedings of Parliament. My impression is of unremitting tedium interspersed with pointless questions. But speech is a very slow means of communication and debate and cross questioning even more so. So how anyone endures this process as a profession I don’t know.
For the maintenance of democracy I suppose we must persevere with this process but it would be nice if it were preserved for things that really mattered.
Much the same could be said for certain court cases and enquiries. I suppose everyone should get a fair say – but why must it be so slow. Definitely needs a gee-up.
Well, one should never assume that “slow” automatically equals “thorough and careful” when it comes to parliamentary proceedings (or court proceedings for hat matter) but I’d hesitate to assume the opposite is more true…
That you start off by saying “Not very interested in the Stormont Brake” is to me not a good look. Maybe you protect yourself from a high dose of tedium by not being interested, but the Irish conundrum is one of the most painful consequences of the UK leaving the EU which needs a proper solution for the Irish citizens both sides of the EU-border. Solving it requires serious, thorough and careful scrutiny of the Windsor Framework and all that sails in it. Definitely not something that needs a gee-up.
“..So it is irrelevant when we consider treaties or contracts as good or bad.
What counts is the signature of both parties underneath…”
In real life, situations change sometimes dramatically. Contracts/treaties cannot/are not drawn up for every eventuality – it’s one of the reasons why Courts & arbitration tribunals exist to amend/replace/remedy poor contracts.
The truth is that contracts/treaties only survive if both parties agree to play ball. If one or other side is aggrieved the contract doesn’t last for ever.
On: “Serious question : do you hope that your representative will vote against the Windsor Framework?..”
It’s becoming self evident that the augmented NIP is simply an updated version of the old NIP – Sefcovic laughingly gave the game away – this was a pity as it makes NIP +, harder to sell in the scheme of things.
Notwithstanding, it would be good if the DUP did accept the new NIP for what it is, and, in good faith, try to implement the agreement. It will become apparent in the next 15-18 months if the Treaty works as planned – else, if not, it will be back to the drawing board, possibly/highly likely with a labour government.
Certainly, the next British signature under whatever agreement related to the NIP should be put in good faith and should lead to an implementation in good faith.
Like the last time with the oven-ready deal…
The treaty will work as planned when implemented.
It would be surprising if the UK once more would suddenly come to the conclusion that they did not exactly know what they signed up to. Let’s keep the faith ;)
“…The government is not giving parliament any adequate opportunity to examine the Windsor Framework….”
Why would they (the government ) give Parliament an adequate opportunity? – OK this is with my most cynical of hats on. They ought to but I can fully see why they won’t.
Events have moved on since that sun-lit day in Windsor when dear Rishi and dear Ursula met with beaming smiles and colgate white teeth – yes, it was too good to be true :(
OK – back to reality.
Only a week or so after the public announcement of the Windsor Framework, a rather self satisfied Maros Sefcovic was recorded talking to EU ambassadors at a private meeting and is attributed as as saying:
“This [Stormont Brake] is very much limited in the scope, and it’s really under very strict conditions,” Mr Sefcovic told them, according to a recording obtained by The Telegraph…”
What really galls is that this government looks to be conniving with the EU to not only ‘big-up’ the Stormont Brake but also to give the impression , from the UK side at least, that the NIP has been re-written in the UK’s favour? – What? – no such thing has happened – what has happened, in reality, as is shown on the EU website, is that the NIP will be modified to accommodate changes to EU laws adjudicated by well…surprise surprise the ECJ/CJEU.
What this tells us is that this government (and the EU) holds us plebs in contempt – did they think that such little scrutiny of the Windsor Framework would suffice?
The good news, is that poor treaties like poor contracts are just not sustainable – if the government with Starmer rams this through parliament without proper debate – which is perfectly feasible, the issue won’t/can’t go away – it’ll likely surface during Starmer’s reign as PM.
In summary, the old adage of ‘you can’t fool all the people all ofthe time’ comes into play _ I’m just amazed at the gall of the government & opposition trying it on in the first place.
The Brexit saga up to now goes a long way in proving the adage “You can’t fool all the people…” wrong.
Regarding the NIP in all its past, present and future incarnations, whether agreed upon or not : The EU is likely not in the business of holding the plebs of a third country in contempt. Their only duty here is towards the interest and integrity of a member state : Ireland.
Concerning bad treaties and bad contracts being “unsustainable” I think I follow your sentiment. We ‘ve all been conned once or twice in our lives and wish we wouldn’t have signed this or clicked on that or spend our hard-earned money on so-and-so. But we did. So it is irrelevant when we consider treaties or contracts as good or bad.
What counts is the signature of both parties underneath.
Serious question : do you hope that your representative will vote against the Windsor Framework?
It doesn’t alter the case that David makes in this blog, but the government’s course of action is understandable from a political perspective. A strong affirmative vote in the Commons in favour of the deal will be very helpful in influencing opinion in NI ahead of the report of the DUP panel on the Framework. Faced with overwhelming support for the deal in London, the DUP may well conclude that it is in the party’s interest to acquiesce, while seeking opportunities for any further changes in the practical operation of the Framework through the mechanisms that are available under the Framework itself. (Of course, this might all have been done under the flexible provisions of the Protocol but let’s not be churlish about the government’s success in getting this over the line somehow, after the utter mess created by Johnson and Frost.)
It’s interesting that none of the commenters (apart from me) address the point that you are making about the erosion of Parliamentary Sovereignty. They all seem quite happy that the Legislature sidelined and that the Executive grabs more powers to itself.
Poor old Chas I died in vain…
Wearily sympathetic…..
Every move this disgrace of a government has made needs scrutiny – which is why they have tried every mendacious trick to avoid it. Parliamentary scrutiny, however, requires the majority of MPs to be awake and committed to democracy. We currently have a parliament where the majority of members don’t care, and those who claim to care, are content to sit back and watch the government fail, hoping that it will be their turn next.
Parliament is currently a discredit to the nation; it’s a cosy club of half asleep halfwits.
“…Parliament is currently a discredit to the nation; it’s a cosy club of half asleep halfwits…”
You make very valid points – the UK parliament “nodded through” via Henry VIII clauses for 45 years, legislation from the EEC/EU every afternoon – the halfwits have years/decades of practice.
There’s a new game in town & they haven’t realised it .
We’ve no one else to blame now.
David one of the suspicions I have is that Johnson and Frost put something in the Northern Ireland Protocol or the ‘oven-ready’ withdrawal deal that would allow them to change it in future easily without Parliamentary approval – because apparently they ‘knew’ it was unworkable but wanted to ‘Get Brexit Done’. What they wouldn’t have counted on is someone else being able to use that loophole to get out of proper Parliamentary scrutiny in the future. Is there any truth to this from your reading of the Act?