Priti Patel said in an interview over the weekend that anti-Brexit MPs were, quote, “using Parliament to subvert the will of the British public”. I wish she and other Brexiteers could see that this statement makes absolutely no sense and contains an obvious logical error in its intended meaning.
The whole point of the unwritten British constitution is that the House of Commons is the supreme legislative body across the relevant territory. You might have heard about the “primacy” of the Commons before; ironically enough, the same Tory MPs who are going on about MPs subverting the will of the people are the very same who worried that an elected House of Lords would threaten the Commons’ primacy, which they considered sacred; in fact, the major reason most of them craved Brexit was supposedly so that the Commons could become the only lawmaker (taking away the European Parliament’s law making ability) and the Supreme Court the highest court possible (over any European body).
The fact that they are now facing off against both of them would be hilarious were it not for the serious implications for the country. Look, this isn’t even an anti-Brexit argument: either you want the Commons to have ultimate legislative power or you do not. Either you see the UK as a principally representative democracy, or you do not.
This is why Priti Patel’s statement makes no sense: by definition, MPs cannot subvert the will of the British public unless they break electoral law. They are the will of the British public by definition. So let’s take triggering Article 50 as an example – if MPs stand in the way of the will of the British public by voting for something that delays this from happening for a while, that very same electorate can vote them out at the next election. It’s very simple. They were voted in to vote in the Commons in their constituents interests – if they fail to do so, the constituents get to make the ultimate decision by voting them out as a result. Given Patel has defended First Past the Post before and the importance of the constituency link and that jazz, she can’t think anything is wrong with the system. So what’s up?
Could it be that they just really, really want Brexit – for no reason than they just do? Because if it really isn’t about making the Commons the ultimate legislature again then is it about immigration control? But too many pro-Brexit campaigners keep saying it isn’t about that but rather returning democratic control to the Commons so we’re back where we started.
Call me old fashioned but if we have to lose the shackles of Brussels, I’d rather not inherit a semi-dictatorship in which Number 10 can simple bypass the Commons anytime it thinks expedient by way of “royal prerogative”. If May is annoyed because MPs vote down the triggering of Article 50, she can say rightfully and truthfully that she did everything she could to get the ball rolling and the Commons would not allow her. And then she can call a general election and romp home. You see? All democracy usually requires is a little patience. Sadly, the Brexiteers are short of it at present.
Perfectly put.
“Sovereignty” was a code word/dog whistle for “don’t let the ‘ummie rights courts in europe stop us kicking out the Muslim criminals”.
The Vote Leave campaign consisted of a lot of anti-muslim dog whistling, especially from the Turkey posters with Syria & Iraq shaded.
I’d rather not inherit a semi-dictatorship in which Number 10 can simple bypass the Commons anytime it thinks expedient by way of “royal prerogative”.
It’s hardly ‘any time it thinks expedient’, there was this little referendum you may not have noticed (I know, the news hardly mentioned it, you’d be forgiven for having missed that it was on).
Look, this isn’t even an anti-Brexit argument: either you want the Commons to have ultimate legislative power or you do not. Either you see the UK as a principally representative democracy, or you do not.
Well, you could see the UK as normally a representative democracy, but on occasions when the legislature decides, by passing a Referendum Bill, to consult the public-at-large, then the public itself becomes the supreme democratic authority, on the particular question expressed in the Bill. Such occasions would be rare and only on matters of supreme constitutional importance, but the principle of Parliamentary supremacy rests on Parliament representing the will of the people, so it makes sense that the one thing that can overrule Parliament is the will of the people, directly expressed.
I mean, you’d have been a bit put out if ‘Yes’ had won the AV referendum and then anti-reform MPs had tried to stop it being implemented, wouldn’t you?
If “Yes” had won, by a margin similar to the actual result, the Leave supporters would already be lobbying for the “do over” (see Scotland). And that might be reasonable. But article 50 makes the process irreversible. There can be no further referendum to “go back in”. I’m not sure it’s a bad thing to see a bit more clearly what Brexit would mean in reality (rather than the lies, exaggerations and opinions of “experts” espoused during the referendum) before making the final step. A step MP’s can canvass their electorate about before votong.
Well, apart from the fact that the AV referendum was binding and the EU one was not, there’s the small question of what the Brexit vote was actually n favour of. For the *type* of severance from the EU to be determined without Parliamentary approval would be elective dictatorship.
It was in favour of leaving the EU. Clearly Parliament should hold the government to account on how it performs in achieving that objective (that is after all part of its function) but some MPs seem to be trying to go beyond that and actually suggesting they could use parliamentary procedure to stop us leaving the EU altogether (or at least delay it until a general election, in the hopes that that will stop the process in its tracks), which is not on.
Eisenhower once defined facism as that moment when private or corporate interests become more wealthy and powerful than the democratic state itself.
52% of the country didn’t vote to ‘remain’ in the EU, neither did they vote to have ‘a deal’ where our legal powers remain in Europe, but instead, they voted to ‘leave the EU’.
Since then, every single MP within the house of commons has attempted to subvert the will of the people by ensuring that our legal powers remain under EU control, whether by pressing for remain, or by wanting a deal, or a better deal. Not once have they argued for what the democracy wished for!
When 52% of our democracy is less powerful than that of a few individuals that reside in parliament, then facism clearly prevails in the UK.