Another example of the current government’s allergy to democratic and Parliamentary scrutiny. For roll-over agreements like Japan barely justifiable (done at speed and little change). But for the US? CPTPP? These agreements could mean major and controversial changes to policy.
https://twitter.com/brigid_fowler/status/1335886288990375936
Note, also, that reducing democratic scrutiny to a “dumped on Parliament at the last minute, take it or leave it” approach is bad strategy as well as being unprincipled.
It increases the chance (even with a majority of 80) of rejection if something has been conceded which causes such outrage that even Tory MPs feel forced to oppose.
More importantly, being able to point to MPs’ and other stakeholders’ opposition to possible concessions can strengthen the government’s hand: it’s the equivalent for a lawyer of being able to say “*I* see your point but my client just won’t wear that.”
It’s yet another indication that the current government is far more interested in re-fighting the battles of the 2017-2019 parliament than dealing with the challenges of the current one: in this case, working out how to build wide support for a coherent trade policy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
