Skip to main content

Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson have conspired to thwart Parliament


During the tumultuous events within Westminster two weeks ago, the Guardian broke the news that Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Patterson, and an unnamed non-cabinet MP have been engaged in talks with right-wing EU governments with the intention of lobbying them to veto the UK’s request for an extension to article 50 should Parliament vote in favour of such an action, as indeed it did.

We should be clear about what these elected representatives, who are meant to serve the interests of their constituents, and the people of the United Kingdom, were doing. They have decided to ally themselves with the likes of Victor Orban, who has treated asylum seekers as animals , and the Polish government, which has all but forced the resignation of their country’s top judges in a bidt  to eliminate the rule of law. Of course, Government’s present and past have done the same,  due to both geopolitical matters and a long history of alliance.our shared history . Relationships with other states are nuanced, and it is easy to take cheap shots at Governments for not being able to have an international presence that is conducted only with countries that pursue policies that we consider compatible. Such is the difficult and dirty compromise of governance.

But these MPs are not the representatives of our country on the international stage. Decisions regarding our diplomatic relations with other countries are not within their competence in any aspect beyond their role as MPs voting in the House. That is the competence of Government and of Parliament.

In fact, these MPs are acting in order to undermine the UK, and to defy the will of our Parliament and our Government. In a monomaniacal pursuit of the Brexit that they have decided is the best for the UK, they have courted foreign governments in a brazen attempt to impose what they - as private individuals - have determined to be desirable upon the sixty-five million citizens of our country . One can debate whether the people desire crashing out of the EU without a deal – though it seems unlikely that the 48% want this or that there aren’t at least 4% of those who voted leave who want to leave with a deal – but this is not the issue of concern. Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Patterson have demonstrated that they are driven by an ideology which holds sacred not our democracy or the sovereignty of our country. Rather, for them, these concerns are merely a smokescreen to be exploited as they try to force the hand of history to bend to their will.

The view of Anna Marie Anders, the Polish minister for international dialogue, is that “sometimes you just have to make a decision, and if someone disagrees, that is the price. You cannot please everyone.” This may be the case, but the extent to which these MPs make decisions is with action in Parliament, and actions within their competence as ministers. The “someone” that disagrees is the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Perhaps these MPs have felt emboldened by the vast amounts spent by the UK Government on legal proceedings in the EU to deprive the UK of the power to unilaterally terminate article 50. Perhaps they are emboldened by the UK’s refusal to denounce violations of human rights committed by the Hungarian government. Regardless of the context in which they are acting, it is the case that  they believe themselves to be above the constitutional operations of the UK, and in doing so,  have placed themselves above our country and they have placed themselves above our citizens. They have displayed blatant contempt for the sovereignty they claim to defend.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thoughts on Labour's manifesto

Introduction. Spending commitments. Addressing climate change. Broadband as modern infrastructure investment. Education for life. Regressive policies. Where is the welfare system? Raising revenue. 95% is a good and untruthful line. Corporate tax. Worker’s shares policy is a second corporate tax. The average citizen and tax. Issues of personal interest. Brexit policy. Council tax. Trust on foreign policy. Paternity leave. Conclusion. Introduction. The 2019 Labour manifesto has been met with the support of 160 economists and the adoration of the party rank and file. It is a bold document designed to attack - and attack hard - in order to make up the current gap in the polls between Labour and the Conservatives. Contrast this with the Conservatives, who have chosen to put out a manifesto sparse on content and detail, presumably hoping to ride their current lead through to December 12th.  While the manifesto is clearly radical in the rate of spending increases...

Internal Market bill

Unfortunately, the country has once again found itself in the midst of another Brexit debate. Perhaps this was inevitable - both the UK and the EU seem to have chosen brinkmanship as their negotiation tactic of choice, both in negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement last year, and in negotiating two party’s parties’ future relationship now. That we’ve reached a similar impasse to that we saw last year is unsurprising. What is more surprising is the way that the situation seems to have followed the logic of a lazy television series. Each successive series finale raises the stakes higher and higher; the action becomes more and more implausible. As last year, we have all of the concerns of lines of thousands of lorries at Dover, damage to just-in-time supply chains, food prices skyrocketing, and harm to businesses and jobs in the UK that rely on trade with the EU. What renders this situation different from that in which we found ourselves last year is the Internal Market bill, a piece of l...