The British Supreme Court hearing today is an interesting event. It is not, as you might be tempted to think, about the House of Commons having to approve the terms of Brexit which Theresa May agrees on at the end of her two-year-plus negotiations with the EU. It’s about whether the House of Commons must give approval before Article 50 can be triggered and negotiations even begin. Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, thinks that’s a load of tosh. The people have spoken. So if the Supreme Court decides to back the notion that parliament must approve, will that make a blind bit of difference? Um, no. A Labour peer has put it in a a single sentence: “The fact that the people have spoken via a referendum means that the people have spoken to Parliament.” In short, MPs, even those (like the PM) in favour of staying in the EU, wouldn’t dare vote contrary to the will of the people expressed in the referendum. Whether we’ll face the same swings-and-roundabouts when May comes back with the deal that’s been struck with the EU, with parliament perhaps having to confirm the decision to withdraw on those terms, remains to be seen. But for now: if you’re clinging to the thought that Brexit might be reversed by the Supreme Court, forget it. All they’re arguing over is which knife and fork to use, not whether the meal will happen.
This, for me at least, raises a broader and more important point: do our representatives have the right to make decisions? In one sense obviously they do, otherwise no legislation would be passed or even introduced. But in passing those laws and voting whatever way an individual MP happens to vote, is an MP simply representing the views of his/her electorate?
The clue is maybe in the name: re-present. If you follow this line, the people vote for a candidate and that candidate’s job is then to re-present the views of his/her electorate. But that soon gets tricky on a number of fronts. For one, politicians and political parties usually offer the electorate their proposed activities if elected, rather than the other way round. For two, when a politician gets into the parliament, there almost certainly will be individual issues that aren’t necessarily covered by the platform on which they were elected. In other words, the politician will have to make the best decision s/he can .
You quickly get from that to the desirability of electing someone who is intelligent, principled and shrewd, and then allowing that person to go ahead and make the decisions s/he thinks will benefit his/her electorate and the people generally.
And to complete the circle of thought, we come back to Theresa May and other MPs who made it clear before June that they thought Brexit was a very bad idea. Yet now they find themselves forced to put into practice this very bad idea. Which all of them protest they can and will do.
I’ll tell you what I’d like to hear/see: a Remain politician standing up and saying “This is rubbish. I believe in remaining within the EU, I can’t in all conscience start working to take my country out of the EU, so on this matter of principle I hereby resign.”
Oh look. There’s the ghost of Thomas More sitting in the back benches shaking his head.
They should just do what the unionist parties here do, and simply refuse to take part in any discussions or debates that involves talking about a prospect they don’t want or agree with. Whether or not it is in the best interests of the wider electorate outside of their constituencies or sphere of thought is irrelevant.
‘It’s about whether the House of Commons must give approval before Article 50 can be triggered and negotiations even begin’
Frankly I believe it is more precise than that, the fact that ‘exit’ was not considered a possibility by the euro/UK parliament elites is seen in that the legislation establishing the referendum did not countenance exit, direction, which they now claim to seek, would have been beneficial pro facto.
Now every attempt is being made to halt fragmentation of project fourth reich by delaying UK exit, albeit, yesterday’s vote in Italy is evidence the elites of Brussels and Berlin are so out of touch with ordinary citizens, they will, I think, move to prevent elections, or political parties, which might act contrary to their desire of european domination.
The decision of the people must be respected, had the jock’s voted ‘out’ in 2014 and the UK parliament had not permitted the exit there may have been some trouble in parts of Scotland, equally, when we vote to exit the UK, our decision must be respected, so too the decision of the UK voters, and yes, I did vote in this one, must be respected.
I am still of opinion they will, like here before, make us re-run it ’til we get it ‘right’ or, their way, so much fr democracy.
Fair enough, Mark. But the interesting point is whether the politician is a channel for the views of the electorate, or whether s/he is seen as a leader who then works stuff out and acts accordingly for the good of his/her electorate and the country generally. I’d feel a bit nervous if politicians only did what they were told. They should be smarter than that.
It’s a very interesting point Jude and the cat will certainly be amongst the pigeons if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling.
I feel that what have is not a direct democracy but rather a representative democracy and a MP should do what he/she feels is the best for there constituents. The level of complexity and vastness of the issues that a elected representative deals with means that it is unreasonable for the general public to have a direct decision on every issue. If there constituents are unhappy with the overall job a MP does they have the democratic right to remove them in a election.
A piece I recently read by the TUV leader Jim Allister made a good point that ties into this somewhat. Jim argued that many MPs/MLAs refused to stand up for what they believed in because as they were career politicians and as they were unable to earn anything like the salary they made in politics in the outside world, it led to them to have simple blind obedience to their party or perhaps in this case there constituents for fear of losing there livelihood.
If the decision is upheld then I reckon a general election is inevitable. The PM will need a mandate in order to trigger article 50.
The Richmond by election has shown how this has completely shifted the political landscape.
This is probably the last chance for Remainers like myself. A general election fought on the grounds of whether or not to trigger article 50 is the only thing with a strong enough democratic mandate to stay in Europe.
the vote was done and dusted months ago,hadnt you noticed.
“the vote was done and dusted months ago,hadnt you noticed”
There’s still nearly 50% of the population of Britain that opposed Brexit Billy. If you think they will just say “Oh well, we lost, lets just do Brexit” then your being naïve. This vote could break up the UK its that serious. Many would argue the reforms coming due to the Scottish Nationalists will inevitably break up the UK anyway.
Personally, despite Theresa May’s talk of “Brexit means Brexit”, I think she will backtrack on many things and get a real crappy deal for Britain. There’s been talk of Britain PAYING for access to the Single Market but the EU is crystal clear: Free movement of people is a condition of access to the Single Market.
“There’s been talk of Britain PAYING for access to the Single Market but the EU is crystal clear: Free movement of people is a condition of access to the Single Market.”
This is not true Ryan.
There are no conditions whatsoever for access to European Single Market or any market.
The condition of Free movement of people applies only to membership of the EU.
WTO tariffs applies to all trade with non EU nations who do not have their own trade deal.
There are also about 20 to 30 countries who have negotiated trade deals with the EU and don’t pay a single cent for them, such as Canada.
Britain will have to pay something as it will want access to projects such as the space program and R&D – but they would be fools to pay a single penny for special trade deals while they have a deficit, i.e. no deal would hurt the EU more.
I think it would be money well spent to pay for access to these programs though and they are probably breaking the news gently as there is still strong feelings and determination to get out.
I am not sure if Ireland needs access to any of them though.
Iceland seemed to do ok without them.
Correct, CETA provides for, qualified free movement in ‘good’s’ but not people, not permitting free movement of UK pensioners will close many european businesses.
“This is not true Ryan.
There are no conditions whatsoever for access to European Single Market or any market.
The condition of Free movement of people applies only to membership of the EU”
That’s certainly not what I’m reading on the BBC, ITV and other media Jessica….
“That’s certainly not what I’m reading on the BBC, ITV and other media Jessica.”
I am not in any doubt about this whatsoever Ryan.
I suggest you research it and verify the truth for yourself.
There never was an honest debate or choice given Ryan, if too many knew the truth all over Europe, the EU would collapse.
As more and more find out for themselves the extent of the lies, it will.
nearly 50
nearly 50%.the reality is the majority voted leave,scotland had their chance they voted to stay in the uk by the time they get another chance the eu will be gone.stopping free movement was the main thing people voted on,ukip with trumps backing will be in the next government if its backtracked on.
I agree with Jude on this.
In general I think politicians once elected should and do have a mandate from their constituents to act as they believe is in the best interests of constituents first and country second, although there is a fair case for the other way round too.
In the case of the Brexit referendum however, it seems like it is just too important and irreversible a decision to allow MPs to exercise their mandate against the explicit wishes of their constituents.
Any MP that finds their own view in conflict with that expressed by their constituency (on such a fundamental issue)should be considering their position.
If there was a yes vote here in a referendum on UI and a Unionist MLA found his/her constituents had voted yes in the main, I would not expect them to stay in position to see that through; they would surely have to go.
After reading this article Nigel Dodds suddenly popped into my mind. Yes, I know, not exactly pleasant but it happened and I have to cope with it. Well Nigel, like all MP’s/TD’s, represents a constituency. So is Nigel’s job really just to represent his electorate? Given that he represents North Belfast which is on the verge of having a nationalist majority? There’s obviously thousands of people who didn’t vote Nigel, are they to be ignored until the next term of the British Parliament? Of course I could say the same about other constituencies. West Belfast, I believe, takes in the Shankill area. Does that mean SF should ignore the views or refuse to represent the views of people from the Shankill?
UUP’s Tom Elliot is in a trickier situation…..though he wouldn’t agree with that. Tom is representing a constituency where the majority definitely doesn’t share his views on most things. Tom has made it clear in his victory speech he will only be representing the minorities views, not the majorities. He’s an MP for some, not for all. So is Tom truly representing his constituency? Is that true democracy? Obviously not. The people of Fermanagh/South Tyrone have the SDLP to thank for Tom.
So, is it truly democratic for an MP/TD to represent just those who voted for them and to leave the rest (in Tom’s case, the majority) without a voice representing their views in parliament?
The British/English pride themselves on many things. The English Rugby team has been doing very well recently and just yesterday nearly all the English pundits declared they are better than New Zealand (Ha!). On the eve of every soccer tournament the Irish, Welsh and Scottish cant escape the media onslaught of how England is going to win the Tournament (Ha!). But another thing the British pride themselves on is being the first “Parliamentary Democracy” (Ha!). Maybe that’s true but that democracy stopped at the coasts of Britain itself. We hear Theresa May speak of “The Will of the British people will be implemented”. The Will of the Irish, Indian, Kenyan, etc people, on the other hand, was constantly blocked by that same British Parliament going back centuries.
So is Britain a “true democracy”? a BIG Ha!
Jude, you seem concerned that our politicians might have difficulty in being convincingly duplicitous.
I have never known a politician unable to show at least two faces when the need arises.
Possibly I just don’t have any standards of expectation as I have spent most of my life in NI!
WITH SOME, erm, EXCEPTIONS
Politics being the art of the possible
Theatre is the art of the impossible
The latter has two faces
The former has two aces
One up his sleeveen, doublecrossable.
An ode to the politics of Ireland in 2016 Perkin, the art of what you can get away with…
In Dublin’s fair city where the chancers are busy
and money is food for the soul
Where the privileged reap and homeless cant sleep,
their children hungry and chilled to the bone
In the land of the Gael, it is now in sickness we pale
where we shelter both despot and slave
For the tyrant has grown, bloated on taxes and loans
How much blood can you squeeze from a stone?
What joy can we see, when even our rivers aren’t free
adios, auf wiedersehen liberty
Maith thú, Jessica, a chara, If one had a tune to your ode one could well have a bash at singing it.
Your mention of adios reminds one if Gentleman Jim Reeves were to repeat his ill-fated tour of 1963 in the Bribable Banba of today, the land of opportunist and gombeen man, he would probably find himself singing as his plane taxied down the runway for final takeoff, not ‘Adios Amigo’ but probably ‘Adidas Amigo’.
Beirt bua.
Perhaps a tiny bit of irony in what you correctly say, Gio when we see Arlene being on the wrong side of the state’s wishes.
Freddie
Yes maybe,though I am thinking more of the relationship between a representative and the constituency that directly elected them.
Mind you I believe F&ST had a majority for remain so perhaps Arlene should be considering her position on that basis! I suggest we don’t hold our breath.