I watched some of the debate in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon. The votes on the Lord's amendments were going the government's way, albeit after they have had to give ground (or perhaps not) on the meaningful vote, so it was a profoundly depressing time. The one bright spot was Ken Clarke's contribution, as usual a masterful speech full of common sense and logical thinking, he debunked to much laughter the idea that Brussels didn't know the government was divided on many issues!
The "deal" struck between Mrs May and the rebels over the so-called meaningful vote was absolutely classic May. Faisal Islam and Robert Peston both tweeted in the early evening that the suggestion of exiting with no deal was now more or less dead and ITV reported the same thing (HERE). Meanwhile, over at Channel 4 (HERE) Jacob Rees-Mogg was telling viewers that not only was "no deal" still alive it was actually MORE likely now than before the agreement. How does she do it? After her assurances to the rebels (Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry, etc) her aides must have immediately briefed the Brexiteers that she had given no such assurances. In can kicking the prime minister is now undisputed world champion.
The utterly awful Kate Hoey, even claimed it wasn't democratic to want to reverse Brexit as some in the Lords have openly said. But this is exactly what Eurosceptics in UKIP and the Tory party have been doing for years. When the country voted to remain in the EEC in 1975, I don't remember anybody shutting down the debate or suggesting in 1990 or so, when UKIP was founded, that it was anti-democratic because it was against "the will of the people".
Of course, there was a longer time interval but I don't believe there is any time limit before you can start campaigning against something. Nobody is talking about reversing Brexit by civil disorder, there are calls either for parliament to take a greater role or for another referendum. It's all very democratic it seems to me.
Brexiteers are looking increasingly unsure of themselves and they want people to rally behind Brexit as a way of diluting the blame when it all goes disastrously wrong (well, you supported Brexit as well - that sort of thing). I note many of them keep repeating that both main parties, representing 85% of the electorate, stood on platforms to take us out of the EU as if 85% of people now want Brexit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I note the Article 50 challenge I wrote about earlier has been rejected by the High Court this morning (HERE). I don't know if this is the end of matter or if it will (or can) go to the Supreme Court.
The challengers website says:
Disappointing, but it's not the end, we'll keep on battling until we're back inside the EU.
The challengers website says:
Sadly, this morning at the High Court in London, we were refused permission to apply for Judicial Review. We will post a more detailed update once the judgment is published.
Very briefly, the judges concluded that the Article 50(1) decision to leave the EU was contained in the notification letter sent by Theresa May on 29 March 2017, and that no further constitutional steps were necessary. The Prime Minister made the decision "backed by the authority of the 2017 Act" (the Notification Act). They also ruled that the application was out of time and did not accept our grounds for extension. We are considering our next steps and will issue a further update very soon.
