This is a severe weather warning, another Government snow job is already under way.
During the recent hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Government said that it is very likely that Parliament will get a vote about Brexit. We are intended to think that this is the same vote the court action is about.
BE WARNED, this is absolutely not the case.
The challenge being heard in court is about the democratic necessity for our Sovereign Parliament to debate and authorise the triggering of Article 50, the “bullet” referred to in court by Lord Pannick, using primary legislation to set out the when, how and with what conditions BEFORE it happens.
The government is referring to a vote by Parliament AFTER Brexit has begun. Our MPs would then be invited to vote on whether the negotiated deal was acceptable or not.
We all know this situation better as “Take it or leave it”. So our MPs would have to choose between whatever had been negotiated (aka “something”) and nothing at all (aka “nothing”).
Today’s Independent (19th October) says such a vote “could halt Brexit”. The paper doesn’t usually get it that wrong. By then, Brexit would long be a foregone conclusion and the only outstanding question would be the extent of the mess.
In what reality would this be a choice? More particularly, a choice for the democratically-elected representatives of the UK people?
It makes a mockery of the role of Parliament, and demonstrates horribly clearly the government’s assessment of our intelligence (amoeba would give us a run for our money according to them) and its view of the importance of honesty and clarity in running our country (we’ll say anything to get what we want).
“Is this any way to run a chip shop?”
Most chip shops are run with more integrity and more respect for the people who hand over the money.