The EU withdrawal bill survived its first test at its commons committee stage this week – but there is still a long way to go. And it seems some on the Tory back benches are determined not to make it plain sailing for the government.
Theresa May’s ‘mandate for a hard Brexit is weak’, says the FT, which argues that parliament is well within its rights to scrutinise the EU withdrawal bill closely. ‘If ever there was a case for parliament exercising its sovereign powers, this is it,’ says the paper. So why the backlash against those in the Tory ranks who are not happy with certain parts of the bill? ‘Parliament’s admirers’ are likely to be ‘dismayed’ at this reaction to elected politicians doing their job, says the FT. It’s true that some will just dismiss this as ‘Fleet Street fun’. It isn’t, argues the FT, which says this treatment of those who apparently want to block Brexit ‘is part of a broader trend which threatens to undermine representative government in the UK’. But whatever names MPs who scrutinise the Brexit process are called, it’s vital that the process of leaving the EU is not ‘rushed through on a whim’. ‘MPs should keep calm and carry on,’ concludes the paper.
The Guardian agrees, criticising what it calls the ‘paranoid Brexit-supporting media’ for its opposition to those MPs who might rebel against the government on its Brexit legislation. These ‘rebels…deserve our unflagging support’, says the paper, which points out that the mammoth EU withdrawal bill is ‘full of consequence’. It contains many ‘complex’ issues that must be resolved – not least, for example, on how courts will interpret European court of justice rulings. So we must remember that while those MPs who want to closely assess the government’s plans for Brexit are sometimes criticised, it is these politicians that are the ones who are actually ‘defending democracy,’ concludes the Guardian.
But for all this lofty talk of parliamentary democracy, this week’s debate actually ‘got off to an unimpressive start’, says the Times. MPs’ attention appears to be largely focused on the government amendment that will ensure the bill comes into force on March 29, 2019. It’s wrong to call those who have criticised this plan as ‘mutineers’, says the paper. But it’s also not true to say that this change to the bill will make a transition deal trickier to achieve, as some have suggested. ‘This week Mr Davis promised new legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement once there is one. It is that bill that will provide the framework for transition,’ rather than the current one passing through the Commons, says the Times.
But is there a danger that MPs are getting bogged down on this issue and not seeing the bigger picture in all this? The question that those scrutinising the bill need to ask themselves is this: will this legislation ‘leave the statute book in good shape for the long term’? The answer at the moment, suggests the Times, is no: the bill is ‘badly drafted’ and unclear. As things stand, it also hands ministers far too much power. ‘It is to these deeper problems that MPs and ministers should turn their attention,’ concludes the Times.
Comments