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 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/02/the-guardian-view-on-brexit-mps-must-raise-their-game
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Brexit: MPs must raise their game | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| It will certainly help to energise and focus the Brexit process if the high court rules tomorrow that parliament, not the government, has the authority to trigger the process. As longtime critics of the system under which the royal prerogative is exercised by ministers alone rather than by ministers in parliament, this newspaper would welcome such a ruling. In any truly modern state, the consent of parliament should be necessary in a major treaty change, which Brexit unquestionably is, just as it is now in practice necessary, since Iraq, in any major UK military commitment. Yet although tomorrow’s verdict will be constitutionally significant (and may well be appealed against), the reality is that to give greater authority to parliament, though welcome, is only truly meaningful if parliament wants to use it. At the present moment, that seems far from the case. | It will certainly help to energise and focus the Brexit process if the high court rules tomorrow that parliament, not the government, has the authority to trigger the process. As longtime critics of the system under which the royal prerogative is exercised by ministers alone rather than by ministers in parliament, this newspaper would welcome such a ruling. In any truly modern state, the consent of parliament should be necessary in a major treaty change, which Brexit unquestionably is, just as it is now in practice necessary, since Iraq, in any major UK military commitment. Yet although tomorrow’s verdict will be constitutionally significant (and may well be appealed against), the reality is that to give greater authority to parliament, though welcome, is only truly meaningful if parliament wants to use it. At the present moment, that seems far from the case. |
| That has to change. Brexit is the most important immediate problem facing Britain. The prosperity of the country depends on it. The place of Britain in the world hangs on it. Even the survival of the United Kingdom as a functioning entity relies on it being sensibly handled. Our party politics are being reshaped by it. Brexit will be the most consequential international arrangement made by this country in generations. | That has to change. Brexit is the most important immediate problem facing Britain. The prosperity of the country depends on it. The place of Britain in the world hangs on it. Even the survival of the United Kingdom as a functioning entity relies on it being sensibly handled. Our party politics are being reshaped by it. Brexit will be the most consequential international arrangement made by this country in generations. |
| Yet most of Westminster continues to act as spectators to the Brexit process not as participants in it. Again today, Theresa May was barely challenged on the subject at prime minister’s questions. It is as though the referendum vote has become the totemic one-off unchallengeable source of all political authority on Britain’s future to which every other question must defer in all conceivable circumstances, however dangerous. This may be what the Brexit fanatics want, as they hound sceptics such as the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, and the chancellor, Philip Hammond. But it is bad democracy, bad government and bad politics. It needs to be resisted and stopped. | Yet most of Westminster continues to act as spectators to the Brexit process not as participants in it. Again today, Theresa May was barely challenged on the subject at prime minister’s questions. It is as though the referendum vote has become the totemic one-off unchallengeable source of all political authority on Britain’s future to which every other question must defer in all conceivable circumstances, however dangerous. This may be what the Brexit fanatics want, as they hound sceptics such as the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, and the chancellor, Philip Hammond. But it is bad democracy, bad government and bad politics. It needs to be resisted and stopped. |
| Today, for example, the government of Ireland called a conference of politicians, business leaders and civil society representatives in Dublin. It was held to discuss the Brexit implications for Ireland’s delicate north-south settlement, and for the future of the open border that Britain and Ireland have broadly enjoyed in one form or another since 1923, as well as before Irish independence itself. The maintenance of that common travel arrangement is a policy that all citizens of the UK should be concerned about. Though opposed to Brexit, the Irish government has been exemplary in attempting to publicise and codify the many complex issues that arise for the island as a result of the referendum vote. Yet the British government has not produced for British voters a tenth of the useful public material that its counterpart in Dublin has been providing. | Today, for example, the government of Ireland called a conference of politicians, business leaders and civil society representatives in Dublin. It was held to discuss the Brexit implications for Ireland’s delicate north-south settlement, and for the future of the open border that Britain and Ireland have broadly enjoyed in one form or another since 1923, as well as before Irish independence itself. The maintenance of that common travel arrangement is a policy that all citizens of the UK should be concerned about. Though opposed to Brexit, the Irish government has been exemplary in attempting to publicise and codify the many complex issues that arise for the island as a result of the referendum vote. Yet the British government has not produced for British voters a tenth of the useful public material that its counterpart in Dublin has been providing. |
| It was one thing for a new British government to require a bit of time to sort out how to proceed on Brexit following the vote. But that is four months ago now. British government and politics is increasingly living in a fool’s paradise about Brexit and its implications, as well as about the timetable that will be triggered by a formal decision to start negotiations. The scale of some of the reality was made clear in a new report on Brexit from a group of independent academics and political scientists. Its conclusion is that the process, with or without the parliamentary vote on the initial triggering of article 50 on which the high court will rule tomorrow, is as complex as it is unpredictable. But the experts are clear that the process “will test the UK’s constitutional and legal frameworks and bureaucratic capacities to their limits”. | It was one thing for a new British government to require a bit of time to sort out how to proceed on Brexit following the vote. But that is four months ago now. British government and politics is increasingly living in a fool’s paradise about Brexit and its implications, as well as about the timetable that will be triggered by a formal decision to start negotiations. The scale of some of the reality was made clear in a new report on Brexit from a group of independent academics and political scientists. Its conclusion is that the process, with or without the parliamentary vote on the initial triggering of article 50 on which the high court will rule tomorrow, is as complex as it is unpredictable. But the experts are clear that the process “will test the UK’s constitutional and legal frameworks and bureaucratic capacities to their limits”. |
| Theirs is exactly the sort of sober and factual document that the UK government is derelict in its duty by not producing for the British public. It performs the practical educative service of spelling out many of the choices facing Britain. These range from when article 50 should be triggered (as late as possible, in our view), whether it can be revoked (yes), how many negotiations are required (it’s hard to avoid several), whether there will need to be a transitional period (almost certainly), the form of consent needed at the end of the process (parliament or maybe an election, in our view) and even the explosive issue of whether the referendum is binding (in practice yes, but in law no). The fanatical anti-EU press has a vested interest in not publicising any of these. MPs and parliament have no such vested interest. Their job is hold the executive to account and to govern Britain. It is time they did so. | Theirs is exactly the sort of sober and factual document that the UK government is derelict in its duty by not producing for the British public. It performs the practical educative service of spelling out many of the choices facing Britain. These range from when article 50 should be triggered (as late as possible, in our view), whether it can be revoked (yes), how many negotiations are required (it’s hard to avoid several), whether there will need to be a transitional period (almost certainly), the form of consent needed at the end of the process (parliament or maybe an election, in our view) and even the explosive issue of whether the referendum is binding (in practice yes, but in law no). The fanatical anti-EU press has a vested interest in not publicising any of these. MPs and parliament have no such vested interest. Their job is hold the executive to account and to govern Britain. It is time they did so. |
| • This article was amended on 4 November 2016. An earlier version used the word “proving” where “providing” was meant. | • This article was amended on 4 November 2016. An earlier version used the word “proving” where “providing” was meant. |