We know that politicians sometimes change their minds and often argue against their own past positions on various issues but the Lords amendments 49 and 51 to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill which were passed on Monday of this week has exposed the prime minister herself to a charge of hypocrisy. Brexiteers are spitting blood and ministers are said to be furious (HERE) - but it's difficult to see why when the amendments give parliament the very same powers that Theresa May was arguing for in a pamphlet published in 2007 when she was shadow Leader of The House.
Amendment 49 (inserted before Clause 9 of the Bill) strengthens the role of parliament in approving the Withdrawal Agreement – before the EU parliament debates and votes on it. Since bringing back control to our sovereign parliament was one of the primary objectives of leaving the EU it’s hard to see why the government (and parliament) would not support this amendment.
Amendment 51 (again to Clause 9) adding the requirement for parliament to approve the government’s mandate for negotiations about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU.
But far from welcoming the amendments, she has vowed to respond robustly when the Bill returns to the Commons and Liam Fox is on the TV as I type this blog post attacking the Lords for trying to "block" Brexit. Mrs May's spokesman said:
“Cabinet expressed its strong disappointment at the defeats inflicted on the EU withdrawal bill in the House of Lords, saying they risked tying the government’s hands behind its back in negotiations with Brussels,”
“The prime minister said when the bill returns to the House of Commons, the government will be robust. She said it was vital to ensure the legislation is able to deliver the smooth Brexit which is in the interests of everybody in the United Kingdom.”
In 2007 though her position was quite different, the opposite in fact. She wrote a pamphlet along with Nick Timothy for Politeia where they argued (page 20) in a section with the title: Restoring Parliamentary Sovereignty:-
"Our feeble system of scrutiny undermines Parliament’s ability to check or restrain the Government’s actions in Europe. In our constitution, Parliament is supposed to be sovereign, but this weakness means that in practice it is not. We therefore need a system that gives Parliament real powers over ministers, enough time to scrutinise new EU laws, and the transparency to restore public trust in the process".
The system they proposed to restore sovereignty included this:
"A statutory Scrutiny Reserve, so that ministers gain Parliamentary approval before negotiating in the Council of Ministers – accepting the need, where appropriate, for ministers to be given flexibility in negotiations"
Lord Monks, introducing amendment 51 said this:
"Amendment 51 would provide that our negotiators work to a mandate approved by Parliament to guide them in the talks—not a straitjacket or a corset but a device to make sure that the Government come clean about what they are trying to do in the negotiations"
The language may be different but the aim is surely exactly the same. But of course May was in opposition in 2007 but now she is PM - that's the difference isn't it?
The debate in The Lords on Monday was a good one - read it HERE.
The debate in The Lords on Monday was a good one - read it HERE.
