An Indiana Jones morment?

Steve Bell: Guardian: 16th January 2019

It is being reported today (Sunday 20th January 2019) that the British Government finds it “extremely concerning” that MPs are trying to delay Article 50 in order to avoid a No Deal. It strikes me that this is a bit like that scene in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when our hero and his chums are in a river and about to go over a waterfall. Mrs May would say that it’s extremely concerning that people in the boat are looking to see what they can use as an anchor. By this time Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the third in the series?), it was a tired and rather hackneyed effort containing nothing much that was new or original, one which kept repeating old tropes from earlier on in the franchise which had long since worn out their welcome. In fact, very much like Theresa May’s government.

It’s such a mess that we’d be in far safer and more competent hands if the Brexit process was being driven by Prince Philip. He seems oblivious to the dangers he causes as well. What’s driving Mrs May's ire is that tomorrow the Commons is due to debate an amendment which seeks to wrest control over Commons business out of the hands of her Government and give it to MPs. It’s an attempt to limit the overweening power of the executive branch of the government and restore it to the legislature of a state which infamously lacks a written constitution and which over the past few decades has slowly turned into what has been described as an elective dictatorship.

The phrase 'elective dictatorship' was first used by the Conservative politician and intellectual Quentin Hogg (aka Lord Hailsham of reviled memory), back when the Tories actually had intellectuals. He used it to describe the UK of the late 1960s when, in his opinion, the British Parliament had become dominated by the government. As a Tory, Hogg was, of course, using it to describe the Labour government of Harold Wilson. However back in those days the cabinet, of governments of either party, was far more an exercise in collective responsibility. Cabinets contained big beasts, who were more than capable of standing up to a Prime Minister who was very much regarded as the first amongst equals. It took the long dark decade and a half of Thatcher to transform the cabinet and the government into a tool and instrument of the Prime Minister. Yet another thing to blame the Tories for!

The theory of our government is that sovereignty rests with a Parliament which is elected by the people. But the reality is that when there is a majority government, absolute power rests with the Prime Minister, who is able to impose her or his will. Theresa May is the head of a minority government, but one which is acting as though it had a majority. Moreover she is a Prime Minister whose personal authority is tattered and discredited. She has done nothing to endear herself to her own backbenchers, never mind the other parties.

The amendment to be debated tomorrow takes advantage of the historic weakness of the Prime Minister. Put forward jointly by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and the Conservative Nick Boles, the amendment seeks to change the timetabling rules of the House of Commons. It all sounds a bit abstract and arcane, but what MPs are trying to do is to remove control of Commons business from the hands of the government and give it to MPs. That will allow MPs to bring forward bills and amendments and ensure that there is time for them to be debated and voted on, instead of hoping that the government will do so. We’ve already seen how this government is hell bent on trying to avoid being held to account by the very Parliament whose sovereignty it claims to be seeking to restore. No wonder Theresa finds the amendment “extremely concerning”.

The reason all this is becoming an issue just now is that by taking control of parliamentary business back from the government, MPs will then be able to change the existing provision in the EU Withdrawal Act which the government rammed through in order to placate extreme Brexists, the clause which states that the UK will leave the EU on 29th March with or without a deal being reached. If they can do that, they remove Theresa May’s big stick, the big stick which remains her only means of exerting any authority. It’s only the threat of falling out of the EU on 29th March without any deal that allows her to continue to insist, despite the historic defeat last week, that it’s her deal or no deal.

We’re in a mess and there's no clear route out of it. And let's not forget who caused it and who seems to make it worse with her every utterance. If only the opposition had an electable leader, eh? Or even one who's prepared to roll up his sleeves and get stuck in. What is he playing at?