When the House
of Lords amends legislation presented by a Labour government, certain sectors
of the media are keen to present the institution as a bulwark for freedom and democracy against the evils of socialism;
when they amend legislation presented by a Tory government, they become
traitors and fifth
columnists. That’s how it appears to
me anyway. I’ll admit to a deep sense of
unease that the UK’s system of democracy is so badly broken that the defence of
parliament’s right to take the decisions rather than be simply railroaded by
the government is only being defended and promoted by a bunch of hereditaries,
appointees and bishops. Some might argue
that it demonstrates the value of having a second chamber which can take a less
partisan approach to whatever subject is being debated. I think it demonstrates the need for a parliament
which has more distance between it and the government with more room and time
for proper debate and scrutiny, rather than one where MPs are simply whipped either
for or against the government of the day.
(At a more mundane level, it does demonstrate why at least some of us independentistas believe that – for as
long as such an undemocratic and unaccountable body as the House of Lords
exists – it is better to have a voice there than not.)
It remains to
be seen whether the government will attempt to reverse all the defeats being
inflicted upon it when the legislation returns to the Commons. It’s hard to see at the moment how May can
afford not to try, with the extremists on her own side demanding that she do
so; but it’s equally hard to see how she can get a majority in the Commons on
all of the issues on which she’s been defeated.
When members
of her own party are describing the compromise towards which both parliamentary
arithmetic and economic reality are pushing the government as ‘cretinous’, it
is clear that the underlying tensions over Europe which brought down so many of
her predecessors are getting stronger rather than weaker. There is only a limited period during which
the government can continue to stick its fingers in its ears and claim that the
EU’s categorical statements are merely an ‘opening
negotiating position’. Meanwhile,
other Brexiteers seem to believe that all be well if only the Prime Minister would
sack
her chief negotiator. The problem, apparently,
is simply that the UK is not being forceful enough in demanding that the EU
dismantle itself in order to accommodate the UK.
I don’t know
how all this will end, but I suspect that the only thing left which gives the
government and the Tory party any chance of surviving in power until Brexit day
next year – let alone until the end of the transition period – is the abject
failure of the main opposition party to seize the opportunity in front of it. Public opinion seems to me to be moving,
albeit slowly, and even if it’s not yet clear that opinion has turned against
Brexit itself, there is increasing evidence that majority opinion would tend to
favour remaining in the single market and customs union if given the
choice. For sure, I’d agree that that is
Brexit-in-name-only, but a determined and united opposition party prepared to
show some leadership on the issue could probably gain a majority around such a
proposal. It would be in line with what
their voters and members are saying as well, but they seem no more able to
unite on a clear line than the governing party.
There’s
something strange and uncomfortable about a position where those doing most to mitigate
the effects of Brexit are the unelected peers, whilst the main opposition party
is effectively aiding and abetting the extremists through a lack of resolve, clarity and leadership.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment