EU referendum was the People v Parliament, so why is the losing side calling the shots? Do politicians really know what a conflict of interest is?
The frequent appearances of Gina Miller on BBC panel shows like “Any Questions” results in her familiar disingenuous rant about the delay and uncertainly in the Brexit deal, meaning that business is unable to plan for the future. That’s as maybe, but it’s disingenuous because the Brexit delay is solely down to the disruption and interference caused by both Houses of Parliament, due in no small measure to Gina Miller’s Supreme Court appeal.
To recap, two contentions were put before the Supreme Court. Firstly, as Parliament had originally given rights to UK citizens as members of the EU, an act of Parliament was required to remove them if Article 50 were triggered. And secondly, that the constitutional settlement between the UK Parliament and the Assemblies and Parliament of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be altered if Article 50 were triggered. If so, this would require the consent of the devolved governments.
The first contention was upheld by the Supreme Court by a majority of 8 – 3. Regarding the second contention, the judges decided that the control of constitutional conventions rested with Government and it was not for the Supreme Court to provide guidance. They were therefore unable to confirm that the devolved Parliament and Assemblies had a right to be consulted.
The first contention allowed Parliament a hand in the Brexit process. However, Parliament’s position since joining the Common Market (as was) in 1973 was that the UK was part of the EU and further, no political party with sitting members had ever presented an election manifesto that proposed the UK should withdraw from the EU. A Labour Party manifesto commitment to a vote on membership of the European community in 1974, and a Conservative one in 2015, led to the EU (EC in 1974) referendums. It could therefore be regarded that both referendums were the People v Parliament. In 2016, the People voted to leave the EU.
It seems that at least eight members of the Supreme Court had failed to realise that in granting Parliament power over the Brexit process, it was effectively handing the losers of the referendum the opportunity to delay, frustrate, and possibly even try to prevent the whole process. In fact a classic conflict of interest in which members of Parliament who voted to remain in the EU should, in all conscience, have declined to vote on anything concerning the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Ironically the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, urged MP’s to “vote with their conscience” in EU Brexit bills and amendments, meaning that those who still believed that the UK should remain in the EU could indeed vote to achieve such an aim. The Supreme Court should have allowed just the executive – the Conservative government – and not Parliament, to withdraw from the EU in line with the People’s wishes.
The path to a Brexit deal therefore runs very slowly, with the Conservative executive having to fight every inch of the way to overcome Parliament’s disruptive influence and worse, attempts to ultimately remain within the EU. To avoid splits within the Conservative Party, Theresa May has been considering compromises in what is a clearly a simple and straightforward task – without Parliament’s interference – of just leaving the EU. Pro-remaining MPs have sought to exploit this by seeking to redefine the definitive. Terms like ‘soft-Brexit’ have appeared whereby pro-remaining MPs hope that a deal can be forged which effectively still leaves the UK within the EU.
It seems something of a paradox that in the EU referendum, the people voted to give sovereignty back to Parliament, and yet Parliament is still fighting against it, under the banner of Parliamentary sovereignty! It’s as illogical as Parliament voting for a dictator and calling that Parliamentary sovereignty. Political ambition means that Parliament will never be short of those who want to serve in it. The vast majority of today’s members have entered Parliament accepting that sovereignty is split between the EU and the UK. Indeed, the EU offers a great deal of opportunity for the furtherance of careers when MP’s cease to serve in Parliament. This has greatly contributed to the feeling of remoteness by the People from an utterly complacent Parliament that has allowed sovereignty to haemorrhage inexorably away to the EU via treaties rather than the will of the people. It’s little wonder the People voted for the UK to take back control from the EU.
