MPs – Delegates or Representatives?
5 min read
When it comes to today's debate on whether Parliament gets a 'meaningful vote' on Brexit, Lib Dem MP Tom Brake says MPs will be judged on "how they weighed their responsibilities and how they then acted."
The past two weeks have seen febrile and high-tension activity in Westminster as Parliament and Government wrestle with, and over, Brexit. The sparks will continue to fly through the summer and autumn. They should. Brexit is fundamental to the economic and political direction of the UK; indeed to what we are as a country. And the issues go to the heart of our constitution: who protects the rights of citizens - their elected representatives in Parliament; or the Government?
But what are the constitutional responsibilities of individual Members of Parliament when voting on Brexit legislation, particularly in light of the Referendum.
The responsibilities of Members of Parliament were defined by Burke as to use: “not [their] industry only, but [their] judgment” and by Sir Winston Churchill, citing Burke, who characterised the position as “the first duty of a member of Parliament” is “to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain” .
In essence, Members of Parliament are elected, as individuals, to use their judgement and experience responsibly in the UK’s best interests. They are not mere agents, cyphers or creatures of party whips’ will.
It is ever more claimed by Brexiters that ‘the will of the people’ was settled in the 2016 Referendum and politicians must simply implement it. The worse Brexit actually looks for the UK, the louder and more often that is said. But was it? For ever? And what really was it? And who interprets it? Crucially, what is that ‘will’ now – when it matters, after two years of reality and what is an MP’s primary Brexit role?
The Brexit responsibilities of Members of Parliament are of a different quality from passing legislation which can be repealed or a policy that can be rejected by the electorate, at the next election. A higher degree of prudence, judgement and confidence is required for decisions which have a fundamental and long-term impact on the country’s future. And those decisions need to take account of the interests of the UK’s young people, who will bear the consequences for much longer. That applies whether the decisions are to leave, stay in a customs union or seek EEA membership. They also apply to whether Parliamentarians should seek an extension of the 29 March 2019 deadline for mature reflection.
The Referendum had no legal effect, as a matter of law. Its impact was, and is, political.
Members of Parliament have to consider the current political relevance of the Referendum when it is now clear that almost every basis upon which Brexit was put to the UK electorate in 2016 was fundamentally wrong.
It is not ‘easy’; there will not be £350m a week for the NHS; there is no Brexit dividend; the EU does not need the UK more than the UK needs the EU; it will not be free to leave; there is not a better trading future for the UK outside the EU; immigration isn’t likely to drop substantially.
Meanwhile the UK’s economy has already moved from being the best (June 2016), to the worst (or close to) performing in the G7. Studies show the UK is already losing more than £350m a week, even before leaving. The UK is losing international influence, credibility, investment and authority.
People recognise, whatever their views in 2016, that the process is far more complex than thought, or promised; and is absorbing, or threatening, far more of the UK’s government resources and assets that was ever contemplated in 2016. Brexit is actually preventing the UK from addressing the many other issues that it urgently needs to address.
So much has changed, and is now known, since the Referendum. Polls show a small balance for Remain – by a similar degree to the 2016 Leave majority - so what is the ‘will of the people’ today – when it really matters? Moreover, due to demographic change, pro-EU sentiment is certain to increase. Democracy is a dynamic process, not a historical prison.
It is time to call time on Project Fantasy: the Brexit Emperor has no clothes.
Of course, Parliamentarians need to give appropriate political weight to the Referendum result: it was an historical political moment.
But the 2016 Referendum imposes no obligation on Members of Parliament to do what is bad for the UK now. The obligation it does impose, should MPs change their stance, is for that stance to be ratified in a public vote on the final deal.
Members of Parliament have a constitutional responsibility to use their votes to do what, after careful consideration, they consider is right for the UK, and its future, as a whole.
They are not bound, constitutionally, simply and blindly to implement a ‘result’ of the Referendum nearly three years later, come what may. The country did not vote to leave at any cost, or in any circumstances. There is no basis upon which Parliamentarians can put their rationality or higher duties to one side and ‘simply follow orders’ – particularly when those orders are out of date and were wholly unclear.
Members of Parliament rightly are fully protected by Parliamentary Privilege from any personal legal consequences of how they vote. But they will not be immune from the judgement of history as to how they weighed their responsibilities and how they then acted. This will include the position they adopted in relation to the ‘meaningful vote’ division this Wednesday.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
