Well, he has resigned

Well, he has resigned

Speaker Martin has announced that he will be leaving his position on June 21 and a new Speaker will be elected on June 22. Astonishingly (or perhaps not) Bob Spink, the one and only UKIP MP was the first to jump up with his tributes.

Sadly, the Tories still don't get it. ToryBoy Blog thinks it is a victory for Douglas Carswell. It is not, despite the excellence of his campaign; it is not even a victory for the House of Commons. Speaker Martin has gone because the Prime Minister has decided to throw his now useless ally under the bus. To the end, he has obeyed the Government not the House.

Already voices are being raised that this venal, incompetent bully who has never understood his constitutional position is being scapegoated by the nasty MPs. If only. But the Tories have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If this report of a proposed "reform" or, in other words, more power being taken away from the Commons and given to a quango, is true, then we can say for sure that not only the Tories but the entire system of parliamentary government (still there in theory though not in practice) will suffer a huge defeat.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Scorched earth …

Before he goes, it seems, Speaker Martin is determined to complete the task of emasculating Parliament, destroying the last vestiges of the doctrine that it is "sovereign in its own House".

Thus, according to reports, Martin is set to push through radical change before he steps down, with the Cabinet this morning set to place the House of Commons "in the hands of independent regulators rather than the House itself." 

As to future Speakers, the nature of their role will change. There will no longer be a Speaker who is in charge as chief executive. He will be procedural and ceremonial.

Even in the manner of the Speaker's resignation, we see Parliament showing its weakness rather than its strength. As my co-editor observes, this has not come about at the behest of the House of Commons as it ought to. Clearly, the prime minister has told him to go.

"Thus, the House has not managed to impose its authority even over him. This was a small test and they failed. The Speaker is still the Executive's bully boy; it's just that he is no longer useful to them."

And, with his departure, we see not the House instigating its own reforms, but the Cabinet – i.e., the Executive – using its satrap to impose changes. Thus we are to see – if this travesty goes ahead - the "mother of parliaments" deemed no longer capable of running its own affairs, its management to be vested in "independent regulators" – unelected, of course, and financed by the government. Speaker Lenthall would be turning in his grave.

However, since Parliament has largely been relegated to "procedural and ceremonial" matters, it is only appropriate that the Speaker should be allocated a similar role. But a Parliament which is no longer in charge of regulating its own affairs – and thus disempowered - can no longer lay claim to regulating the conduct of government.

In the fullness of time, I suppose, the new body – which we could call the Parliamentary Regulatory Agency Temporary (or "Offtrough" for short) – will have to be brought under the control of the about-to-be formed European Parliamentary Regulatory Agency. Clearly, under the Single Market, different rules cannot be allowed for different national parliaments.

Then the take-over will be complete, with Speaker Martin being remembered for his scorched earth policy which finally destroyed the very idea of an independent parliament in Westminster.

COMMENT THREAD

Revenons-en à nos moutons

In other words, let us return to our muttons. (For some reason I have always attributed that one to Diderot but it seems to come from an anonymous 15th century French farce. Well, you live and learn.)

The muttons in this case are those continuing negotiations over theConstitutional Lisbon Treaty. It is assumed that the Irish Government will be put under pressure at the forthcoming European Council meeting in June to name a date for the nuptials second referendum.

In the meantime, feverish negotiations are going on to ensure that the people of Ireland vote yes this time, as it will be a little difficult to have a third referendum and nobody wants go back to the negotiating table for yet another treaty.

Ireland, as the European Voice explains, wants three Protocols added as well as a Declaration (which will have no legal validity) on workers' rights.

The protocols on security and defence, ethical issues and tax will be Irish-specific and are not expected to include any opt-outs from EU policies. But a declaration on workers' rights has raised a number of questions from other capitals, which are suspicious about state obligations to employees in the middle of a financial crisis. As a result, the declaration is expected to state what guarantees already exist on workers' rights in the EU, according to Irish official sources.

Diplomats in Dublin are currently in negotiations with the Council of Ministers' legal services over the protocols. The protocol on tax will be a short statement that the Lisbon treaty gives no extra competences to the EU on tax matters.

The reference to ethical issues will state that nothing in the treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights or in the chapter on justice and home affairs policy will affect the Irish constitution as regards the family. References to security and defence are unlikely to include an opt-out of the European Defence Agency (EDA), but Ireland is expected to give its parliament more powers of scrutiny over EU defence policy.

They can have all the powers of scrutiny they want - it will make no difference to EU policy but that is not the objective. All the Irish government wants now is to fool enough people in that country for long enough to get that dratted yes vote.

Open Europe think this is becoming achievable.

Meanwhile, the Spanish are becoming a little difficult. That is not precisely news but it is always entertaining. According to El Mundo, quoted in the same article in the European Voice, though the Spanish piece is clear enough:

In a separate move, Spain has also asked for a protocol that would guarantee its right to have an increase in its number of MEPs, as provided for by the Lisbon treaty, as soon as the treaty comes into effect. But EU leaders are not expected to discuss this at the June summit since it might appear to prejudge the results of the Irish referendum.

This could open a can of worms if Spain insists on renegotiating the Treaty to get that Protocol. Other countries might think of a few changes as well. Clearly, that cannot be allowed by Czech European Affairs Minister Stefan Füle thinks that some kind of a compromise can be found. I expect so - historic experience tells one that what Spain wants Spain gets in return for unswerving loyalty to the project, which just happens to pump a good deal of money into that country.

Oh and in case anyone is wondering, there is a "temporary" government in the Czech Republic (apart from the real government in Brussels).

COMMENT THREAD

Collective suicide

That the MPs got themselves into this mess is one thing. But, as John Nagl once said, "mistakes are made in war, the only crime is in not learning from them." 

So it is with politics. With attention focused on the Speaker, we now learn that he is to announce his resignation later today, thereby casting him in the unusual role of the "guilty" scapegoat, an unfortunate animal so laden down with its own sins that the many more piled upon it makes no difference.

But, in turning a profound crisis into another episode of the ongoing soap opera, with its accent on personality politics, MPs are demonstrating that they have learnt nothing – and are incapable of learning. Tony Benn has it, saying, "This idea you can put it all on the Speaker is absolutely wrong. This cannot be turned just into a personal drama because it gives MPs a way out." 

Needless to say, the prospect of a scalp has the claque bubbling over with joy, thus illustrating that unfortunate characteristic of the "crowd" – a race to the bottom, where the collective exhibits animal instincts rather then intelligence.

So the crowd will have its blood, that vain, stupid, lumpen mass, incapable of seeing beyond the morrow. And when the morrow comes, nothing will have changed. A new face will peer from the canopied chair and the soap opera will continue. Like all fantasies, though, there is no substance and, soon enough, the crowd will be baying for new blood, never to be sated.

And, when the election comes, what will the crowd do then? My co-editorhas some thoughts on this matter.

But make no mistake. These are dark days. We are seeing another, and major lurch towards the destruction of our democracy. The more the claqueurscheer, the more certain it becomes. Our MPs are in the throes of collective suicide and we, as a nation, are set to join them.