Royal Assent, Anyone?

We live in bizarre constitutional times. And tomorrow, Monday, 9 September 2019, is a particularly interesting day. Will the Surrender Bill[1] obtain the Royal assent?

This question gives rise to issues which do not normally arise. Normally, the government controls the business of Parliament, such that bills do not get Parliamentary time without government support. Normally, the government enjoys a majority in the Commons, such that bills without government support are not passed. Normally, Parliament does not pass bills that defy the result of a referendum and are contrary to the election pledges of both major parties.

But these are not normal times. It is not unusual for the opposition to try to disrupt the business of the government of the day. That is true of both the main political parties, but is perhaps especially true of Labour Party oppositions; many Labour Party politicians resent Conservative politicians to the point of hatred. And it is not unprecedented for there to be groups of people who owe their principal allegiance, not to their own country but to a foreign power. The Babington plotters and the Jacobites in the 16^th and 17^th centuries owed their principal allegiance to Rome as the hub of Roman Catholicism, and in the 20^th century the British communists owed their principal allegiance to Moscow as the hub of communism. Just as the Remainers now apparently owe their principal allegiance to Brussels as the hub of the European dream.

What is unprecedented is the unholy alliance between those two.

It is not the function of Parliament to

Goading clever?

Quite apart from all the other reasons why it is a bad idea, the Remainers’ Surrender Bill –  intended to order the Prime Minister to seek an extension for Brexit from the EU, and to obey any instructions from the EU as to when, if ever, Brexit is to happen – breaches the fundamental principles of separation of powers.

It is not the function of Parliament to govern; that is the function of the Executive. There are very good reasons for that constitutional principle. For a slow-moving and public forum such as a legislative chamber to try to dictate the management of the State’s affairs is hopelessly inefficient. It is scarcely better than Parliament seeking to order the captain of the English cricket team what to do if he wins the toss, who to get to bowl and for what spells, and when to declare. Come to think of it, it’s worse than that. It’s like ordering the captain of the English cricket team to make these decisions according to the wishes of the captain of the Australian cricket team.

Plainly, the effect of the Surrender Bill, if it becomes law and not

Recent thoughts

 

For various reasons, I have not posted so much recently. But I have a couple of moments now, and here are some recent thoughts:

Rain

We at the beginning g of September now, towards the end of the rainier winter on the Fleurieu Peninsula, but neither my rainwater tanks nor my dam (“Loch Phenelry”) are yet full.

If my croquet lawn is to flourish over the summer, I need some more rain.

Hong Kong

Ever since the British government handed back (unnecessarily, in my view) Hong Kong to the Chinese, Hong Kong was doomed. Without any pleasure in saying so at all, I fear the protesters have no real prospect of succeeding. Hong Kong used to be a colony of the British, but was free, in that the government did pretty much what the people wished for, even though there were no elections. Now and for the foreseeable future, it is a colony of the Chinese, and not free: now the government does what the Chinese want.

Forbidden Fruit

For many people, that which is forbidden is all the more delicious.

For me, as for many other people, the best fruit is knowledge. There is a delight in

“No one voted for no deal”…

Oh really? How easily they forget.

 

But it wasn’t just Grieve…