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 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/democracy-undermined-on-all-sides-as-brexit-starts-to-take-shape
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Democracy undermined on all sides as Brexit starts to take shape | Democracy undermined on all sides as Brexit starts to take shape |
| (5 days later) | |
| As you report (May accepts demands for greater scrutiny of Brexit laws, 12 December), the prime minister has agreed to set up a new “sifting” committee to identify whether changes made by the sweeping delegated legislation in the EU withdrawal bill require further scrutiny. | As you report (May accepts demands for greater scrutiny of Brexit laws, 12 December), the prime minister has agreed to set up a new “sifting” committee to identify whether changes made by the sweeping delegated legislation in the EU withdrawal bill require further scrutiny. |
| What may look like a concession on the surface is far from it. What is critically missing is reform of the woefully inadequate system for scrutinising statutory instruments. The amendments tabled by Charles Walker MP, chair of the Commons procedure committee, set up a new sifting committee, but do nothing beyond that. This is also plainly just a temporary measure restricted to the withdrawal bill, so what then of scrutiny of delegated legislation in the (at least) seven other Brexit bills, or in legislation beyond that? | What may look like a concession on the surface is far from it. What is critically missing is reform of the woefully inadequate system for scrutinising statutory instruments. The amendments tabled by Charles Walker MP, chair of the Commons procedure committee, set up a new sifting committee, but do nothing beyond that. This is also plainly just a temporary measure restricted to the withdrawal bill, so what then of scrutiny of delegated legislation in the (at least) seven other Brexit bills, or in legislation beyond that? |
| In practical terms, what this means is that if problematic statutory instruments are identified, they will simply be fed into the existing fatally flawed and archaic system. This is even more frustrating given that holistic reform to the existing system has been proposed by Dominic Grieve in amendment 3, and roundly ignored by the government. The May government has instead opted to build a new committee on rotten foundations. | In practical terms, what this means is that if problematic statutory instruments are identified, they will simply be fed into the existing fatally flawed and archaic system. This is even more frustrating given that holistic reform to the existing system has been proposed by Dominic Grieve in amendment 3, and roundly ignored by the government. The May government has instead opted to build a new committee on rotten foundations. |
| The existing system for scrutinising statutory instruments has enabled wholesale abuse by ministers, who have used the instruments to implement the “rape clause” for tax credits, allow fracking in national parks, and abolish maintenance grants for higher education in England. Very recently, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has used secondary legislation to introduce accountable care organisations, which campaigners including Professor Stephen Hawking have said will Americanise the NHS and lead to further privatisation of it. | The existing system for scrutinising statutory instruments has enabled wholesale abuse by ministers, who have used the instruments to implement the “rape clause” for tax credits, allow fracking in national parks, and abolish maintenance grants for higher education in England. Very recently, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has used secondary legislation to introduce accountable care organisations, which campaigners including Professor Stephen Hawking have said will Americanise the NHS and lead to further privatisation of it. |
| It is ironic that the solutions for truly empowering the House of Commons to scrutinise sweeping delegated legislation arising from the withdrawal bill, and act on government overreach, may now lie in the House of Lords.Alexandra RunswickDirector, Unlock Democracy | It is ironic that the solutions for truly empowering the House of Commons to scrutinise sweeping delegated legislation arising from the withdrawal bill, and act on government overreach, may now lie in the House of Lords.Alexandra RunswickDirector, Unlock Democracy |
| • Although May’s dramatic deal is better than the alternative, it demonstrates the basic themes of Brexit (Deal is done but ‘the most difficult challenge lies ahead’, 9 December). We will leave the EU at great financial cost, with diminished political and diplomatic power. Many on both sides of the referendum divide will wonder why we did it. | • Although May’s dramatic deal is better than the alternative, it demonstrates the basic themes of Brexit (Deal is done but ‘the most difficult challenge lies ahead’, 9 December). We will leave the EU at great financial cost, with diminished political and diplomatic power. Many on both sides of the referendum divide will wonder why we did it. |
| The EU is not a great institution. Its response to the financial crash of 2007-08 was to put the interests of capital ahead of its people. The referendum result was part of the UK’s reaction to the growing inequalities and impoverishment caused by the crash. However, voting to leave was not an appropriate response to such problems. It was a cry of pain, not a manifesto of change. As a result we really do not know the fundamental reasons why we are leaving. | The EU is not a great institution. Its response to the financial crash of 2007-08 was to put the interests of capital ahead of its people. The referendum result was part of the UK’s reaction to the growing inequalities and impoverishment caused by the crash. However, voting to leave was not an appropriate response to such problems. It was a cry of pain, not a manifesto of change. As a result we really do not know the fundamental reasons why we are leaving. |
| In its current form the EU is not politically coherent and certainly not democratic. It needs to deepen the political and financial structures to support its currency as a way of preparing for future economic shocks. Without Brexit the UK could have been pivotal in securing the second tier of such an emerging Europe. Although this tier would be politically distinct from the core, it would remain economically and socially close. | In its current form the EU is not politically coherent and certainly not democratic. It needs to deepen the political and financial structures to support its currency as a way of preparing for future economic shocks. Without Brexit the UK could have been pivotal in securing the second tier of such an emerging Europe. Although this tier would be politically distinct from the core, it would remain economically and socially close. |
| Optimists might think we will end in the same place as we would have done without the referendum – close to but not part of an emerging European federal state. Pessimists, on the other hand, can see a lot of pain, disunity and insularity on this journey as well as a shedload of missed opportunities to help the world at a very difficult time. Paul LallyLiverpool | Optimists might think we will end in the same place as we would have done without the referendum – close to but not part of an emerging European federal state. Pessimists, on the other hand, can see a lot of pain, disunity and insularity on this journey as well as a shedload of missed opportunities to help the world at a very difficult time. Paul LallyLiverpool |
| • It is understandable that those who portrayed the EU as the all-powerful, all-conquering organisation find the terms of the agreement between the UK and the EU that moved the negotiations towards “phase two” unclear and perplexing, because it ended up with substantially the same as what the UK government offered back in January and later in September (Nothing is clear about Brexit. That may be for the best, 12 December). The agreement reached with the EU has brought the phoney phase of the negotiations, phase one, to an end. We could’ve reached this place months ago had it not been for the EU’s intransigence and its idiosyncratic phasing arrangement, designed to pre-empt and intimidate by creating a hothouse atmosphere to force binding agreements on matters that are the outcomes of negotiations, before negotiations actually start. | • It is understandable that those who portrayed the EU as the all-powerful, all-conquering organisation find the terms of the agreement between the UK and the EU that moved the negotiations towards “phase two” unclear and perplexing, because it ended up with substantially the same as what the UK government offered back in January and later in September (Nothing is clear about Brexit. That may be for the best, 12 December). The agreement reached with the EU has brought the phoney phase of the negotiations, phase one, to an end. We could’ve reached this place months ago had it not been for the EU’s intransigence and its idiosyncratic phasing arrangement, designed to pre-empt and intimidate by creating a hothouse atmosphere to force binding agreements on matters that are the outcomes of negotiations, before negotiations actually start. |
| It was not long ago that the EU threatened to punish the UK for daring to vote to leave the EU. In September, Michel Barnier said: “We intend to teach people … what leaving the single market means.” A no-deal outcome that isolates the UK would be the ultimate warning for countries like Greece, which fears isolation more than the suffocating austerity imposed on it by the EU; Greece is not economically strong enough to force the EU to negotiate, but the UK is, and has done so. It is only the start, and the government remains on notice to deliver the clean, clear Brexit the people voted for.Fawzi IbrahimLondon | It was not long ago that the EU threatened to punish the UK for daring to vote to leave the EU. In September, Michel Barnier said: “We intend to teach people … what leaving the single market means.” A no-deal outcome that isolates the UK would be the ultimate warning for countries like Greece, which fears isolation more than the suffocating austerity imposed on it by the EU; Greece is not economically strong enough to force the EU to negotiate, but the UK is, and has done so. It is only the start, and the government remains on notice to deliver the clean, clear Brexit the people voted for.Fawzi IbrahimLondon |
| • How disappointing it was to see such massive coverage of the Brexit agreement, without any recourse to the actual document. We had page upon page of reaction, interpretation and breakfast photos, but the text of the agreement, apart from a few quotations, was not to be found. Shouldn’t the Guardian, respecting its readership’s intelligence, allow us to read the document, instead of having it filtered to us through layers of journalists?Roderick MacFarquharEdinburgh | • How disappointing it was to see such massive coverage of the Brexit agreement, without any recourse to the actual document. We had page upon page of reaction, interpretation and breakfast photos, but the text of the agreement, apart from a few quotations, was not to be found. Shouldn’t the Guardian, respecting its readership’s intelligence, allow us to read the document, instead of having it filtered to us through layers of journalists?Roderick MacFarquharEdinburgh |
| • The failure of the government to undertake impact assessments on sectors of the economy (Davis admits ‘impact forecasts don’t exist’ but escapes censure, 7 December) is due not only to indolence but also to its obsession with reducing the size of the civil service. My old department, the DTI, had a structure of industry divisions which worked with key sectors on policy and programmes. The department’s regional offices delivered those programmes and also fed back information on the issues facing those sectors. The move to single government offices started the decline in information flow that was completed by the coalition which closed them. The government does not have the intelligence (in both senses) with which to form useful policy. Lunches with the CBI and the IoD are no substitute for feet on the ground. Generally speaking, you get what you pay for.Bob NicholsonFrodsham, Cheshire | • The failure of the government to undertake impact assessments on sectors of the economy (Davis admits ‘impact forecasts don’t exist’ but escapes censure, 7 December) is due not only to indolence but also to its obsession with reducing the size of the civil service. My old department, the DTI, had a structure of industry divisions which worked with key sectors on policy and programmes. The department’s regional offices delivered those programmes and also fed back information on the issues facing those sectors. The move to single government offices started the decline in information flow that was completed by the coalition which closed them. The government does not have the intelligence (in both senses) with which to form useful policy. Lunches with the CBI and the IoD are no substitute for feet on the ground. Generally speaking, you get what you pay for.Bob NicholsonFrodsham, Cheshire |
| • If the outcome of the referendum of 23 June 2016 has been treated over the last 20 months as an emotional event favouring the advice of leaving the EU, would it not be wiser to ascertain definitively whether the British public really does want to leave the EU? If so, a second referendum would appear to be a sensible solution before the UK team is committed to lengthy and uncertain negotiations.Louis Blom-Cooper QCLondon | • If the outcome of the referendum of 23 June 2016 has been treated over the last 20 months as an emotional event favouring the advice of leaving the EU, would it not be wiser to ascertain definitively whether the British public really does want to leave the EU? If so, a second referendum would appear to be a sensible solution before the UK team is committed to lengthy and uncertain negotiations.Louis Blom-Cooper QCLondon |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| European Union | European Union |
| Theresa May | Theresa May |
| David Davis | David Davis |
| House of Commons | House of Commons |
| Civil service | Civil service |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |