Absolute_Zero wrote:Parliament's role is restricted to ratification
Which would involve voting on it.
Parliament provides its formal collective consent by majority vote. Having a meaningful vote on the terms of the negotiation would, indeed, be ratifying the treaty. That's exactly what that would be.
Now, if your point is that it's simply not pragmatic to negotiate terms, have a vote and then re-negotiate terms (potentially numerous times) - remembering that the EU also has to collectively ratify the new treaty too - all within the 2 year period devoted to doing so, after which all the EU treaties automatically expire anyway and we're just auto-dumped into a WTO "hard Brexit" by default, then I can see the semblance of a point here.
In principle, without doubt, Parliament should vote on the terms and, thus, be ratifying the treaty, as only Parliament - being sovereign - has the authority to do so.
I mean, even if you're all for Brexit, then you should seriously consider that if the sovereign power does not formally approve of it, then the very legality of the Brexit terms will be open to question forever more.
Parliamentary vote solidifies things. As, indeed, though May was frightened to take the Brexit Bill to a vote in Parliament, fearing that it would be blocked or delayed, and had to be forced by the courts to do so. Well, the Commons backed it. It gave its formal approval. There is now no question whatsoever that Brexit will happen. The Commons has priority and it said "yes".
If you're for Brexit then the courts disallowing Theresa May to bring about Brexit by executive diktat is a good thing. If she'd have done that then its legality would have been dubious and open to debate. She should actually thank the private citizens who forced this into the courts before Article 50 was invoked, because now there's sod all question that the Commons has indeed given her the mandate to do so.
And, to be frank, she should grant the Lords their amendment. We should just unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in this country, regardless of what the EU does in return. One, because we should surely morally aspire not to be arseholes about this. Two, the EU is the one wanting freedom of movement in the first place - and it has even spoken seriously about allowing British citizens to ask to retain their EU rights regardless of any negotiated position - so, basically, it's not going to be the one to pull up the drawbridge here. That's not going to happen.
And though I understand her intense desperation here - because the British people really have dumped us in the shit for voting Leave - she's just doing it wrong. If you open the negotiations with such threats, then she's going to get a shit deal.
There's strategy in her openly uttering "no deal is better than a bad deal" beforehand, to threaten walking away, even if it's not true. Now that's the sort of shit that one does in negotiations. But threatening the rights of EU citizens in this country? No, she's doing it wrong. That's really, really, really poor strategy. Atrociously bad.
I don't just mean morally - though there is that, of course - but it's pragmatically awful. It just won't work out well. It's terrible strategy that'll likely backfire on her arse.
Look, grant the Lords their amendment. We should be guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens. That's perfectly right and sensible, and really won't injure our negotiating hand at all (might even very well greatly improve it).
If she would concede that, then she would have Commons and Lords approval for triggering Brexit. With no questions of its legality for her to do so, as Parliament would have collectively said "yes".
She's being unnecessarily dictatorial. There's no point in it. The Commons said "yes" and the Lords are only asking her to fix the fucked up bit about threatening EU citizens in this country. So, for fuck's sake, woman, just do that. It's right and proper, and it really won't do a single sodding negative thing to affect our negotiating position.
She was afraid of Parliamentary approval. But she's actually got it from them. Because they're not going to defy the Will of the People as expressed in the referendum.
She's being an idiot. There really is no need for this posturing. It serves no useful purpose. And, with Parliamentary approval, it's all legally watertight. If she'd gone ahead without that, then its legality would have been questioned forever.
The courts forced her to get Parliamentary approval - imagine if the court cases had been triggered
after Article 50 and negotiations, which she'd stubbornly done without Parliament's backing, instead of beforehand, and they declared her actions to be illegal after-the-fact? Because, fucking hell, would that have been "cat amongst the pigeons" for the next century or so.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
