Questioning the executive

I have written a couple of times, framing Brexit in relation to the ways in which both the coalition Government and the ones that followed, have tried to limit the way in which the executive (the Government) can be questioned or challenged.

There has been the limiting of legal aid, which forces ordinary citizens to defend themselves against local authority or central Government legal teams. Even when they win and are found not guilty, they can't recoup costs.

There is the limiting of Freedom of Information (FoI), putting all sorts of limitations, meaning that it a request is too diffuclt or expensive, it can be refused with no challenge.

Judicial Review came under threat, where Ministers complained of being held to mere technicalities. The law is nothing but a huge bunch technicalities. The basic principle that everyone should obey the law, and no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above it.

That the very Minister responsible and who swore an oath to uphold the law has been found to have broken the very laws they were duty-bound to uphold.

Brexit, and the powers that the once great withdrawal bill bestowed on Ministers means they could annul laws, create new ones, or remove or change citizen's rights at the swipe of a pen.

These are the actions of a communist Politburo or a tinpot dictator.

Proroguing is what happens at the end of a session of Parliament, when the Government plans a new Queen's Speech. What Johnson wants is to suspend Parliament; either by direct action, or by calling an election the day after Brexit, in order that MPs cannot change the course of Brexit.

We are in a situation where the Government of the day, will not attempt to pass laws, lest MPs try to amend them to hold it to account over Brexit. A Government that cannot or will not pass laws is not worth having.

Parliament will have many opportunities to pass amendments to any legislation, even the legislation regarding a vote of no confidence, even the non-amendable Standing Order 24 is now amendable, at least and encouraged by the Speaker.

At the end, it is a battle as which is supreme: Parliament or the Executive.

The Executive has inherited many what are called Henry VIII powers, and for centuries these have not been questioned. But thanks to Brexit, and May and Johnson's determination to break conventions means that these powers are being defined and limited. It may come to a court to decide this, meanwhile the clock and calendar ticks down, and as we all know, Brexit is primarily a matter of international law, and irrespective of what parliament can or might do, any change of course from the default, no deal, has to come in accordance with the UK Constitution.

The Prime Minister of the day has to submit a request for an extension or to revoke Brexit. And for that needs the support and a vote in support, and probable primary legislation passed by Parliament. Parliament on its own, with a sitting PM of a minority Government who might have lost a no confidence vote, but refuses to resign or step aside, cannot revoke Brexit either.

It is a mess, and will get worse and worse.

Next up, what happens after Brexit, even a no deal Brexit.