January 1st 2020

If whatever Brexit shenanigans over the next month extent the Brexit deadline past the first of January, then there will be trouble.

2020 is the time that the secondary parts of the Lisbon treaty kick in, with lots more powers for the EU and  basically after that all nations are locked in, without the ability to exit unilaterally. Which is what the backstop of the withdrawal agreement was only ratifying. No unilateral withdrawal, no article 50. Instead nations will only be able to exit with the acceptance of the majority of nations.

Now I'm not one to spout conspiracies, but I do wonder if the pantomime in Parliament is a smokescreen to get us past that dealing and allow the trap to springs shut. Then our membership of the EU is assured in perpetuity, with no exit possible.

Prorogation

Prorogation

Noun

meaning:

the action of discontinuing a session of a parliament or other legislative assembly without dissolving it.

The media has worked itself into a frenzy over the prorogation of Parliament. The fact is that prorogation is an entirely legitimate mechanism of Parliament.

The other salient fact is that Parliament hasn't had a Queen's speech (and with it any new legislation) for THEE YEARS.

For the past two years critics have been saying that Parliament has been paralysed by Brexit and they are right. No new legislative proposals have come out of government for three years. Current legislation harks back to a time when the Maybot scraped through the election. That's before article 50 was enacted, before any deals had been done, before chequers, before the Olly Robbins stitch-up, before the withdrawal agreement, before the backstop.

All we have had in the intervening time, is Parliament and private individuals like Gina Miller attempting to stop Brexit and thwart the role of the government enacting the very thing the people had told them to enact. .i.e. leaving the EU.

It's been Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. It's time to settle the matter and move on.

The media is calling it a government coup.
How can it be, when all the government are doing is suspending Parliament until the Queen's speech. There are no tanks on the lawns of Westminster, there are no soldiers barring MPs entry to the Houses of parliament. They will have plenty of time to debate whatever new agreement comes out of talks between Boris Johnson's government and the EU.

What they won't have time for is unnecessary shenanigans like votes of confidence and other delaying tactics put in place by MPs.
 The media are calling it undemocratic. How can it be undemocratic to move ahead and leave the EU when commanded by the people? The referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. The biggest ever vote. The people spoke. How can it be undemocratic to follow their instructions?

I suggest that the Johnson government needs to let dissenting anti-Brexit MPs in leave-voting constituencies understand in no uncertain terms that they will not get the PMs full support and they will be left to fight against the Brexit party on their own.

Where MPs have voted in accordance their leave-voting constituency, I believe that the Brexit party should leave well alone.

The rump of remain constituencies should feel the full force of a Brexit party PR campaign, blasting out the message that despite them voting to remain in the EU, the majority voted to leave. The majority decision, like all previous majority decisions in political history, should be carried by the government of the day and those that voted leave have no mandate to thwart the view of the majority.

The result of the referendum was clear, with no ambiguity: the people of the UK wish to leave the EU. The government has leeway in HOW they leave the EU, but leave it they must. And leave it in a way that satisfies the electorate, otherwise they will not be in government after the next election. Boris Johnson understands this and is trying his best to move forward with the will of the people.

Its something that Theresa May, the House of Lords, Gina Miller and all the anti-Brexit MPs in the commons fail to understand.

Is Voting Enough?

In days of yore, when we had elections and referenda, the people voted and the winning vote won the days and the outcome was enacted. Either the party that won most votes got into power, or the winning majority in a referendum had their side of the argument enacted.

But not now it seems.

These days, it seems that everything is fluid.

On referenda: Brexit didn't carry the day, the voters didn't know what they were voting for, it's only advisory... etc.

On general elections: elected MPs can change parties with impunity even to a party with a manifesto in complete opposition to the one they were voted into office on and still stay as an MP without triggering a bye-election.

It seems the ordinary people doing the voting don't count. The votes don't matter.

So is voting enough? Do we have to do something besides voting in order to underpin our democratic decision?

Are Parliament forcing the hand of the people by ignoring the will of the people?

I  leave it to you dear reader as to what that "something else" is besides voting. Whether it's activism, protesting or direct violence against those that deny democracy, I can't say.

But, it seems that something in addition to voting is now necessary in order to enforce the result of a public vote.

We truly do live in unprecedented times. Very certainly post-democratic ones.

Unless we do more than "just" vote.....