The problem with the proposed position emerges down the article, when the author accepts that if there were any chance that the implementing legislation might be defeated (eg a large Tory rebellion) Labour should abstain.
So the suggested vote against is purely symbolic, and contrary to what Labour (and the author) actually wants, which is to get the legislation passed (given what will happen if it isn’t: the lesser of two evils).
I don’t think that voting against legislation you don’t actually want to fall is a very coherent or principled position.
The principled position is in my view to abstain: that is to let the Bill pass, but to make it clear that Labour thinks the deal that it implements is the second worst option and that it will negotiate a better deal when it takes office.
The task that needs to be engaged in once this crisis is over is to start thinking about the achievable and sustainable vision of the UK’s relationship with the rest of our continent that Labour will propose in 2023/4 in place of the dysfunctional one that this govt is after.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This an incoherent and, frankly, silly way of thinking about the issues here. All treaties - all contracts - involve a surrender of freedom of action (“sovereignty”).
The question is whether what you are agreeing not to do is something you value doing so much that you will sacrifice all the benefits of an agreement in order to keep the ability to do it.
So when the EU insists on the UK operating a robust and independent subsidy control regime, the meaningful question is whether the things we couldn’t do in such a regime are things we really want to do.
This rejected clause is the provision that makes subsidy control a reserved matter - giving Westminster power to legislate to impose a subsidy control regime on the devolved parliaments without breaching the Sewel convention.
Note, though, that clause itself is a breach of the Sewel convention, since it takes power from the devolved parliaments without their consent. Paradox number 1.
Paradox number 2 is that the current government’s current declared plan for a subsidy control regime is ... not to have a plan. We might do something some time if we feel like it.
But the point exhibits a peculiarly English Tory type of constitutional reductionism. Many, if not most, federal or devolved systems exhibit a constant tension between central and sub-central units, and constant bargaining over powers.
That can be healthy: political tension and conflict, and divided power, is often a good thing. Read Machiavelli or the Federalist Papers.
The SI it refers to revokes the recognition *in the UK* of the EU common ski instructor test: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1038… (see (a)).
But - obviously - that doesn’t affect anything happening in the EU. The reason why training UK national ski instructors have to get their Eurotest qualification in December is that as a matter of EU law the regulation setting up that test applies only to EU nationals.
Really, as the Torygraph’s chief political correspondent, @christopherhope should know that senior civil servants are *already* subject to performance reviews. This is basic.
Also, it is a myth (derived from one of the less accurate episodes of “Yes, Minister” that Ministers are forbidden from talking to (or “quizzing”) “junior civil servants”.
The real story - which @christopherhope may have missed - would be if Patel (after several years as a Minister) or her Spads still haven’t cottoned onto the fact that senior civil servants have performance reviews or that she can talk to junior civil servants if she wants to.
Preliminary and important observation: I cannot speak for the accuracy of Matthew’s story - and like any journalistic account, it doubtless leaves out much of relevance. In particular, the case for a lockdown probably didn’t really depend wholly on the 4,000 deaths/day estimate.
So let’s make this a bit abstract (but as the story shows, a realistic abstraction).