This will be an important week for Parliament - and for the UK generally. The Government hopes that - with threats and vague suggestions of possible future action - that it can ram the Committee Stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal Bill) in just two sitting days. It invites the House of Lords to back off exercising the Parliamentary Sovereignty that the Supreme Court upheld - and to step away from giving this historically important bill, any significant scrutiny.

I hope that Peers will be not be cowed by the unpleasant tactics of this government which barely has a majority in the House of Commons for a policy that lacks the support of most entitled to vote - and those, who have a long term interest in the future of the country, who were denied a vote.

If you are not enraged - why not?

If you are - make sure that Peers (and Government Ministers, & your MP) hear your concerns -and ask that proper parliamentary and public scrutiny be allowed.

If you wish to follow the Lords Committee Stage of the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill today - it will be online at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/…/20b31f64-725c-435a-8c43-587b… - The House will have prayers first (not broadcast) then there will be four questions taking about 30 minutes.

The "order paper" for the day's business in the House of Lords can be found at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/minutes/170227/ldorderpaper.pdf
Documents relating to the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill can be accessed on http://services.parliament.uk/…/europeanunionnotificationof…The key to use are the Bill itself, https://www.publications.parliament.uk/…/201…/0103/17103.pdf - the explanatory notes https://www.publications.parliament.uk/…/2…/0103/17103en.pdfand the Marshalled list (Amendments will be referred to by the number on that list)https://www.publications.parliament.uk/…/0…/17103-I(Rev).pdf

A call to action

We should be proud of our parliamentary history. Parliamentarians stood up to Kings who would be tyrants - even deposed a few. They established the principle that Parliament (and not the Executive) is supreme. Let us encourage TODAY'S Parliamentarians to continue standing up to those who would try and cow it into subservience. Drop a line to your own MP, or a few members of the House of Lords saying that you want The safeguards in amendments to be discussed in Parliament this week brought into that awful Enabling bill.

Go to http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/ to find contact details for MPs & Peers

What's been said in the Lords

You can read the transcript of what was said yesterday in the House of Lords. There are some excellent speeches.

I recommend downloading and reading the PDF version - http://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-20

I've been posting my favourite bits on my Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/jdavidmorgan

A Busy Week Ahead

The House of Lords is due to hold its Second Reading debate on the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill  on Monday and Tuesday. I expect to be tweeting & posting on Facebook during those two days. You can follow the debate on ParliamentLive. The House starts sitting at 2.30 but there will be approximately 30 minutes of questions first.

Also on Monday demonstrations are planned to protest the invitation of Donald Trump to a State Visit. Details of the nationwide protests are available here.
The House of Commons - in Westminster Hall (actually a committee room close to the North entrance) will be debating the multi-million signature petition at 16.30. It is open to the public - I'm not even going to try to get in, as I expect it to be packed. The live feed (and later the recording - will be available here.)

That Speech

Forget the headlines, and the clips, and the knee-jerk reactions.
What exactly has Blair said? -

Amendments in the House of Lords

Posts will appear on one of my other blogs - Washminster - which gives a brief introduction to amendments in the House of Lords - which might be helpful if you intend to follow the detail in the House of Lords (or generally want to know how amendments work)

http://washminster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/lords-amendments.html 

Part 1 appeared on Friday 10th February
Part 2 will appear on Saturday 11th February


David

Parliamentary Failure

You'd expect me to be disappointed at the passing of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, without amendment by the House of Commons. I am a 'Remainer', I am appalled that the result of the referendum was achieved by deliberate misrepresentation; by making that promise that the NHS would get an extra £350 million a week if we withdrew - which was so cynically used, when there was never any intention to honour it; and by the stoking of prejudice and hate.

But I'm used to disappointment in politics (I've been a Labour Party activist for 43 years - possibly to the day!); I've campaigned in the US for John Kerry (2004) & Hillary Clinton (2016) and lost my own parliamentary (Blaby, 2001 & 2005) and European Parliamentary (2009) races.

My concern about the Bill which has now been passed by the House of Commons - is that it is an important Enabling Bill - which has no scrutiny of the use of the tremendous power it hands to the Prime Minister. I'm not a sore loser - I'm concerned that Parliament has abdicated power. There were many good amendments - but they were bulldozed away. Scrutiny matters. Parliament should always be holding the Executive to account. MPs are there to represent the concerns of their constituents - NOT to dictate to the Executive - but to raise concerns, challenge poor decision making, and get answers from decision makers. This bill does NOT contain basic safeguards.

The Opposition, by virtue of having failed to win as many seats as the Government party - should NOT expect veto power. It is frustrating to see good amendments voted down (as happens on Government Bills  regularly - and that has happened throughout the modern era of Parliament). Being out of government (and that applies to Opposition members AND backbench members of the party forming the Government) means that the role is often limited to warning and pleading.  I applaud the work of 'rebel' Conservative MPs, the Labour, Lib-Dem, SNP (& other parties) in trying to change the bill. The work of opposition is frustrating, and there are very few successes. But losses in the Commons stage of a bill are not a waste of time. Often ideas put forward by the opposition will lead to later amendments put down by the Government itself. Backbench MPs can make a difference to policy and legislation.

But this is a bald Enabling Bill. The Government will not tolerate any amendments, or any meaningful parliamentary Scrutiny of the use of the tremendous power it grants to the Prime Minister. If I had become a Labour MP, I would have rebelled last night (and I don't take rebellion lightly!). This was a bad bill. The House of Commons should not have abdicated its power, MPs should have used their judgement, not been browbeaten by the Whips; and sections of the Press. Whatever you think about the issue of Britain's relationship with the EU - surrendering power to the Executive without requiring some level of meaningful scrutiny should be of concern.

The Bill now goes to the Lords.

A Shining City upon a Hill

America has often aspired to be "a shining city upon a hill". John F Kennedy referenced this quote from the Sermon on the Mount, through John Winthrop, who led communities fro the East of England to Massachusetts in 1630, and was the elected governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company.  Either during or before he sailed to America on the Arbella, he spoke to his fellow refugees from  religious and political persecution in England -  "We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill - the eyes of all people are upon us."

It might appear that the USA's role has been renounced by the new President, Donald Trump. Already he caused waves of outrage around the world by his words and his actions.

I was very discouraged by the events in Britain in June 2016, and then in the USA when I was there for the election. A new mean spiritness; a new disregard for truth and our common humanity seemed to have triumphed.

Yet there are still Americans prepared to stand up for the values that have caused the USA to be revered in the past. As I write this, Democrats in the Senate are staging a 24 hour 'talkathon' to protest the nomination - and oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos to be Education Secretary. We've seen thousands of people across the USA march to protest the attitudes and the actions of Trump's administration. I was thrilled - and proud - when I learned how many of my friends had participated in the protests.

That people are prepared to speak out; to condemn what is wrong  - shows that the spirit to be a positive ' shining city upon a hill' still remains in many American hearts. I was pleased also to see that the Speaker of the House of Commons was prepared to risk the ire of a MINORITY in the House of Commons who are comfortable with a Trump administration. That so many people filled Whitehall (and other streets around the UK) to voice our opposition to Trump's actions and show solidarity with those in the USA who deeply resent being represented by such a character who is truly 'anti-American' in his rejection of the legacy of the founding fathers.

While the populist right has been seeking to divide - I am encouraged that their actions are uniting so many people both within the USA and outside.

Can we learn from a Founding Father?

In the days following the elections in the United States, I revisited the Jefferson Memorial on the tidal basin in Washington DC. If you haven't been, I would encourage you to do so - it is an inspiring place.

With the announcement that President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a so-called "conservative" (I say so-called, because I believe this peculiar ideology is actually revolutionary), I recalled what is displayed on that monument.

But first - how does the Daily Mail (well the Guardian, Washington Post & New York Times might seek to misrepresent him!!!) explain his ideological position?

- Originalism -

Like Scalia, Gorsuch favors what is known as originalism -- the idea that judges should interpret the US Constitution by reverting to how it was understood at the time it was written, with no modern filters.

it's no surprise that he was backed by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which both work behind the scenes to see a conservative evolution of US law.

Doing the wrong thing?

I've always been passionate about Parliament. It has been my main interest in research and teaching. I love to watch the debates, and particularly the activities in the Select Committees. I've fought two parliamentary elections as a candidate, and worked in the Palace of Westminster - both on a voluntary and (low) paid basis. The history of Parliament inspires me - and I maintain the highest regard for the institution and many of its members and staff - who work long hours, often doing work for which they get no thanks - and which poorly rewards skills that they have chosen to use in the service of others when they could have been much better rewarded elsewhere.

But I'm rather sad today. I fear that tonight will be one of the House of Common's low points. It has had its high points - it has stood up to tyrants; established rights that we should cherish; created institutions which have served the people well; - most of all it has been the scene of many significant victories in the march towards liberty for all.

Yet tonight - despite having had the principle of parliamentary sovereignty upheld only a few days ago in the Supreme Court - it will probably hand the Executive a blank cheque.

Don't underestimate the significance of the Second Reading of a bill. It is the point at which the House gives its approval in principle to a legislative measure that has been proposed to it. After ceding the agreement in principle, it can make amendments to the details - but the principle has been adopted.

We had hoped that before the House of Commons did that a White Paper would have been produced - so that the Members of the House could see where the Executive was going with the power the House was about to give it. Well - and this adds insult to injury - it will NOT be published until the House has voted to cede power to the Executive.

The Bill is short - it is the worst kind of enabling bill - this is what a blank cheque looks like in parliamentary language.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1     Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

(1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European 
Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

(2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European 
Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

2      Short title

This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 
2017.

Good legislation, when granting powers, should state any restrictions that Parliament thinks necessary, any requirements for reporting back or when parliament should be consulted when the power is used. There are none here.

And the first thing that the Government will do if it wins the vote on Second Reading is to move a programme motion which will restrict the time available for debate. [Such a motion requires notice - you can read it in today's Order Paper - https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmagenda/OP170201.pdf pages 6 to 7]

I hope I'm wrong. But within hours the House and its members will decide. Your member of Parliament owes a duty to you. Edmund Burke.

"I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for."

Some will say that the Referendum result gags MPs today. But declining a Second Reading to this bill - is NOT a rejection of that result. This bill, if passed, will cede the right to oversee our departure from the European Union from Parliament to the Executive. If you feel strongly about this - then contact your MP straight away. If you don't know who your MP is - then this LINK takes you to a page that will help you find him or her.