Brexit: Day 1 debate: Withdrawal of UK from EU Bill

Pedro Lastra photo

By

Hazel Speed

The Withdrawal from the EU Bill, The Great Repeal Bill, Henry VIII, etc – A rose by another name Bill…you know the one in question, even if the name keeps being changed to be more PC.

Having listened to the first day of David Davis‘ presentation in Parliament concerning the above Bill, (in his capacity as Minister, Secretary for Exiting Europe), despite his thorough and comprehensive outline of the Government’s proposals, albeit amidst hecklers from all Parties, including his own, the whole disrespect given to his endeavours and seriousness which the issues deserved, one could not help thinking that any Carry On in Parliament film would be less of a farce.

Kenneth Clarke gave a repeated final comment, then a final second point, within a long speech (for which another speaker had given way), wherein he complimented the Opposition Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Keir Starmer for his speech a little while earlier, when in essence, he would have been more honourable to have ‘crossed the floor’ of the house to join them.

The Labour front bench were fazed, thinking it was Christmas. Anna Soubry, as always, was being Anna Soubry.

The Scottish Nationalists reminded us that the majority of their country did not vote to leave Europe, and so inevitably were subsequently instructed by an MP on Conservative benches that the vote was a UK one, not a Scottish issue, and a million Scots voted to leave Europe.

The retort to that was that 1.6 million Scots voted to remain and the others must have been misled/did not understand/were confused (the microphone did not pick up which excuse was used exactly, but it was something along those lines – as it always is).

Given those who voted Leave are generally written off as being stupid, it is surprising they all survive from day to day with general living.

It was most difficult to take Sir Keir Starmer seriously, recalling Labour’s turncoating and betrayal of democracy.  Would the average Remainer buy a secondhand car from him or are the confused Leave voters more likely?

The only concession to make from listening to such lengthy dross, is that there may be loopholes in legislation here or there, which should be protected within Parliamentary legislation when practicable in the future, to enable legitimate challenges.

Although Carers’ Pensions, previously lost/stolen by the various successive Governments, victim as a type of trailaway item tagged along with the same WASPI issue, is never referred to in Parliament (to my knowledge), it would perhaps only be possible to challenge under EU appeal presently for instance.  What of the future?  This matter was not referenced today but I have written on it previously as it also affected myself, as inevitably does WASPI.

Recently I made another plea on this subject, which predictably came to nothing again as the reply had nothing to do with the question.  I mention it herein as such injustices will no doubt be beyond appeal once UK Parliamentary Legislation is supreme.

A Scottish MP did indeed reference their concern regarding partner equality on pensions where it relates to same sex couples, so respective amendments to this Bill may indeed be required, yet not all will be represented so there must be a catch-all facility incorporated therein.

Mr Davis clarified about 20,000 statutes/legislations had been initiated over the years so it made sense to transfer all collectively, but that only about 1,000 were of significance to debate in Parliament.

Anna Soubry asked for a type of political triage.  It would be easier for us all, according to some, if Mr Davis took her into the talks he has with Mr Barnier.  That said, he did offer to discuss issues with her, both in Parliamentary debate and privately.  I wish someone would speak to him about lost Carer’s Pensions.

There was an irony in that there were calls for the right to challenge laws in UK Courts.  In January, Gina Miller took her issues to the Supreme Court in order to achieve supremacy of UK Parliament.  It is so confusing.

Now we have news of a collective letter signed by around 40 Leave MPs sent to the BBC, insisting that there is a clean break with the EU and no remaining by stealth, etc.

What did look disrespectful when the camera zoomed in on Mr Davis whilst he spoke, were the two MPs sitting behind him who were busy on their mobile phones.  That is not democracy for some people, whatever the reason.

The great orators of former years managed to be intrigued by debates, and be prepared with supporting paper documents, especially if they intended to speak within the exchanges.

Mr Davis gave way to enable numerous MPs from all Parties to speak.  However, an MP from the Labour benches said something so inept that Mr Davis dismissed the remark as a silly one, which it was.  Pity I cannot remember it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg‘s name was referenced by the Opposition as a type of political stealth weaponry in respect of his being PM in waiting, should the Government front benches and promises change in the midst of transference of laws from Europe.  He was present and could have taken a bow!  A smile was sufficient.  Many a word said in jest.

There were playground disagreements amongst all the objecting voices upon hearing the content of Mr Davis’ remarks; but the stakes are so high and the people’s will should be upheld.  That is democracy and we are talking about the Mother of all Parliaments, aren’t we, or is this one of the acts in Iolanthe?

Michel Barnier joined in with comments to the media.  He does himself no favours and should be above that as a diplomat.  He also reveals his hand.

Breaking news is that (according to a leak from Europe), Mrs May is to make a statement around 21st/22nd September.  Time will tell.

Many voters will never vote again as they are saying ‘why bother, Labour, and others, are overturning our vote’, whereas some simply comment ‘for goodness sake get on with it, and do what we voted for – Leave!

They have a point.  We are all getting older.

I do think references to King Henry VIII which were referenced today, were somehow in poor taste, akin to swearing in Church.

Also, without wishing to excuse the historic records of his transgressions, medical science is of the opinion that the King may have had a personality change after hitting his head following a bad fall when participating in a joust.  Apparently, previously to that event, he was kind and considerate.

When MPs speak in Parliament, there should be an inferred respect of where one is, and the privileges of modern politics are only possible because of centuries of history and lessons hard learned – let us never forget that.  Respect costs nothing.

The content of what was said was therefore uncalled for and inappropriate.

The debate continues…

Hazel Speed

Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine

Hazel Speed is a Philosopher, Writer, and Artist with various creative projects at differing stages of development. Her flaship project is an animation which has produced a film short: www.thepinkprofessor.com. She has also written an E-novel, ‘Just Suppose…!‘ which is available via the attached link.

Art sites: www.candystoreart.com, www.terrificart.com, www.artbadges.co.uk