,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So to what extent are MPs and others (including myself) who have opposed the UK's Brexit deal to blame for what has happened? Exploring this leads to big questions about our system of Government to which I can offer only tentative thoughts 1/
Government is clearly the negotiator of international agreements, deploying a royal prerogative but with Parliamentary scrutiny under the 2010 Act. Under this Act Parliament can refuse to ratify a treaty - so the Royal Prerogative is limited to a degree 2/
Assume for a moment that there was not a two-year time limit on reaching a Withdrawal Agreement, in this situation Parliament would be fully within their rights to delay the agreement as long as they like, and would expect to do so if they were unhappy 3/
The Government's argument seems to be contradictory - on the one hand votes are advisory, such as that against no-deal, on the other that Parliament has not said what it wants so this is the only possible deal. 4/
There are also suggestions that Parliament voted to trigger Article 50, or that the referendum result must be binding. Neither would seem to create solid reasons for why MPs must support the Government's position 5/
There is another argument that the only way MPs can be sure to influence the Government's negotiations is to vote no confidence, and if they don't, they have no rights. But that can't be right when looking at the 2010 act including treaties 6/
Do MPs have a moral obligation to support the Government in a treaty they have negotiated? Surely this would be the case only if they felt they had been fully consulted, and they clearly do not believe this 7/
Government has control of the Parliamentary agenda, and has whipped to make sure this is retained. Given this, and that it is two months since the PM's deal was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament, MPs cannot be blamed for failing to set the agenda 8/
MPs are the people's representatives in our system, and reflect as we'd expect a span of opinion. If they collectively decide that a treaty is not in the interests of the country, that is clearly their right. Similarly to delay a decision. 9/
I'd go further and argue that this situation is exactly why the Government cannot bring a repeat motion to the House once defeated - because that is to attempt to subvert or pressure the will of the people once expressed 10/
My conclusion is that MPs have in fact exercised their full constitutional rights, and the political crisis has been created by Government failing to respond to them, plus time pressure. The emerging constitutional crisis is that Gov ignoring MPs, not vice versa 11/ end
