“Take back control” proved a potent slogan for the Leavers in the EU referendum campaign. It has largely been seen as an appeal to the perceived popular desire to choose who we let into our country.There has, however, perhaps been too little focus on other reasons why we should rejoice that it has been so powerful.
The key reason is that Parliament will once again be sovereign after Brexit.
The great Lord Bingham asserted that, after 1973, Parliament remained sovereign and that the impediments to Brexit were therefore “practical and political, not legal”. The trouble with that assertion,even from so eminent an authority, is that in an increasing number of areas Parliament has delegated authority to Brussels and Parliament’s sovereignty muscle is in consequence atrophying through lack of use. If not in theory, in “practical and political” terms, Parliament will need Brexit to retrieve its sovereignty. As any physiotherapist will tell you, bringing a muscle back from atrophy is hard and painful work, but, if successful, in the end rewarding.
The evidence of atrophy is rich and varied. Many recently appointed junior ministers are surprised by how much of their time is spent rubber-stamping Brussels policy and implementing it. Some civil servants revel in being able to thwart the ministerial will by explaining that, admirable though the ministerial objectives might be, Brussels simply would not allow it. Divide and rule has long been an attractive part of any powerful official’s armoury and our membership of the European Union provides endless opportunity to frustrate “courageous” ministerial decisions and to gold-plate euro-regulations.
Parliament as a result does not get a look in, particularly as the volume of euro-legislation is now so great that most of it has to be passed without scrutiny, and, often, when it is scrutinised, it is scrutinised retrospectively. Not that that alters the price of fish, since Parliament has no right to alter it anyway.
One of the more distressing consequences of atrophy has been that it has contributed to the decline in the standing of both parliament and of parliamentarians.
It has not been the only factor: the lack of constitutional reform and the expenses scandal have paid in their fair share, as has the contempt for due legislative process ushered in by Tony Blair. However, any fan of Trollope, student of Horatio Bottomley or reader of the magnificent “No More Champagne”, a study of Churchill’s finances, will realise that flash financial practices are as old as Parliament itself and certainly did not come in with the European Union. But, so long as Parliament reforms its practices to conform with the standards of the age, a sovereign assembly will, by virtue of the power vested in it, command the respect of the electorate to which it is responsible.
If its power has leached elsewhere, it will be treated with the contempt it deserves and will be tempted, in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, to indulge in further unedifying antics, both financial and demotic.
The electorate will take note and begin to wonder what is the point of Parliament. Perhaps, they will wonder, the United Kingdom itself is as old hat as its principal institution and local parliaments would serve them better. That is how multinational polities die.
Another consequence of atrophy is that able ministers use Parliament as a ladder to lucrative employment. A seat in the House of Lords, if you do not mind declaring your interests, will gain you entree into an agreeable club and keep you a foothold in politics, but there is more power and money to be had in Goldman Sachs or UBS.
The return of power to the House of Commons after Brexit will make it more attractive for sacked ministers to follow David Cameron’s admirable example and remain as MPs. Some might even emulate Lord Home and return as Foreign Secretary. The House would greatly benefit from their experience and its standing would rise, appearing more convincing as the forum of the nation.
Both Parliament and Whitehall will find it hard to reacquire the cast of mind we have progressively lost since 1973. It will be hard to find the staff for trade negotiations, for the FCO, for all sorts of legislative and administrative tasks, it is true, but the cast of mind will be the most difficult.
And the electorate will find it the most difficult of all. It has been said that one of the characteristics of the modern age is that many people remain adolescent until they are fifty, blaming everyone else for their troubles and expecting to be rescued and pitied. With Brexit, Parliament and people will have no one to blame but themselves. We might politically once again become an adult nation.
The opportunities post adolescence are limitless. Perhaps we are beginning to glimpse that and realise the rewards, both material and psychological, are worth the risk. In any case, we have no option. That is what we have voted for. Hooray for that.
