,
25 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Some initial thoughts on this thread by @Jesse_Norman and articles by @sc_laws.
They concern, broadly, innovations (actual and prospective) in the way in which the Commons controls the business brought before it. That is an aspect of the balance between the powers of the Government and of Parliament in our constitutional arrangements
The thrust of these articles is a call for caution. Caution and reflection are good. But it is also important to identify the reasons why there is pressure on this aspect of our constitutional arrangements, as these challenges will need to be addressed.
I identify two long term challenges. One is the increasing likelihood that there are Commons majorities for legislation opposed by the Government of the day. Brexit has brought that issue to the fore. But this probably won’t be the last time this happens.
There are 3 reasons why I say that. The first is political: the increasing likelihood of minority governments, due to there being a large block of third party MPs: SNP now and probably in the long run; Lib Dems in the past.
Perhaps another if one or both of the 2 main parties fractures along the lines we can all see in both of them.
The second is also political: a slow decline in party discipline. There are a range of reasons for that which are unlikely to change.
The third is legal: the Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes it possible for a Government to be defeated on a significant policy issue and yet remain in office. The Govt has lost its ultimate weapon to avoid losing votes: the threat of an election if it loses.
The loss of that weapon of last resort - the weapon that got Maastricht through - profoundly alters the balance of power between the Govt and the Commons.
The possibility of legislation being supported by a HoC majority but opposed by the Govt is therefore increasingly real. Brexit won’t be the last time this happens.
In my view, the rules that currently operate simply fail to make proper provision for this. @sc_laws and @Jesse_Norman identify what they are: the rules that allow Govt to control the timetable and to (in effect) block any legislation that commits financial resources.
In my view, it’s no use simply complaining that changing those rules will have consequences: they are going to have to change.
Ultimately, it is just unacceptable - and will be seen by voters as unacceptable - that legislation supported by a cross party majority of MPs can be blocked by the Govt by what will be seen as procedural devices.
As to the cry that a crisis is the wrong occasion on which to change the rules, the short answer is that, generally, you need a crisis to change constitutional rules.
Indeed, the standing orders giving Govt control of the timetable were themselves a response to a 19C crisis (filibusters by Irish Home Rulers).
“Now is not the time” is the last resort argument of constitutional conservatives throughout the ages. If it was not ignored, no change would ever happen.
The other pressure on Commons/Govt relations comes from the current inadequate arrangements for control of Govt negotiation of treaties.
Brexit is a stark example of this: the Govt just can’t go off and negotiate a complex treaty involving profound legislative and policy choices and then present it to MPs as a fait accompli.
For the reasons set out above, and which we are now seeing played out in our current drama, this isn’t going to work any more.
If Brexit happens, we will see the same issues with negotiations of FTAs (and endless future treaties with the EU): if it doesn’t, we will see it with future revisions to the EU treaties.
Arrangements will have to be made for properly involving the Commons in the setting of negotiating objectives and in the choices made as negotiations proceed.
That will, I think, mean legislation setting out precise negotiating objectives and mechanisms for detailed reporting to and scrutiny by Commons committees of negotiations as they proceed.
The cry will go up that this will weaken the Govt’s hand. That cry is a siren call. A clear mandate, agreed by Parliament, strengthens the U.K. negotiating position. “I can’t agree that, it’s not in my mandate” is a great line to have.
See the EU’s position in third country negotiations, passim.
I don’t dismiss @sc_laws and @Jesse_Norman’s caution. But I don’t think conservatism is an answer here. The challenges I have identified won’t go away. The current arrangements can’t address them. We need solutions. They are likely to be quite radical ones. /ends
