Trust in Democracy

As the Brexit debacle rolls on and we are being softened up for a humiliating defeat and punitive surrender of sovereignty, we could be forgiven for thinking that it was, perhaps, a little insensitive of the Conservative Policy Forum to be asking their membership how we could sustain democracy in terms of strengthening the union, encouraging more people to become involved with our democracy and restoring faith in our institutions. But so we were as the Meaningless Vote was defeated again, not a single other option was able to command a majority and a precious Nick Boles threw his parliamentary toys out of the cot. You couldn’t make it up.

Just as I was writing up my notes, I was reminded by Howard Wheeldon what William Hague had said in January 2008 in a debate about the Lisbon Treaty.  It is a pity that we did not use his words as an introduction to our debate:

“My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, because the case for a referendum rests above all on the need for the House and the Government to honour commitments solemnly given. How many times have each of us in the House toured schools and colleges saying to young people that they should take an interest in politics, that their vote makes a difference and that what is said at election time really counts? What are we to say to them in future – that the fact that they elected an entire House of Commons committed to a referendum was of no account, that the Government regarded that commitment as a technicality to be escaped from rather than a promise to be kept, and that promises made at election time do not really matter at all? Today in our country, the word of Government is less readily believed than at any time in our modern history. Ministers, instead of tackling the apathy and cynicism that that brings will only add to it with the weasel words with which they try to escape their referendum commitment.”

We do not appear to have made much progress since 2008.  Indeed, since Lancaster House, William Hague’s words carry a prophetic ring.  Where will May go next?  The letter to Tusk appears to have been written in anticipation of rejection and she has already acknowledged one of the inevitable conditions of a further extension to Article 50, namely, holding European elections. Most commentators think that the likely outcome will be an extension of at least a year during which time, on current form, honourable members will continue to posture and obstruct - like a parliamentary version of Parkinson’s Law with debate and meaningless votes expanding to fill the time available.

For those who believed in leaving the EU in the first place and for those who were less ideologically certain but, nevertheless, believed in honouring “commitments solemnly given,” how long will patience with the present process endure?  Will they, like Samson, be prepared to perish with the Remainers by bringing the Party's house down?