Shenanigans in Parliament were another unconstitutional act by MPs

The Letwin amendment is just the latest procedural move by MPs claiming to respect the outcome of the referendum, but who are, in reality, as Frank Field told the Commons yesterday, Remainers in Brexiteers’ clothing.

The amendment withholds parliamentary approval for the deal until the legislation needed to implement it has been passed by the Commons. It triggers the provision in the Benn Act requiring Boris Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit beyond Oct 31.

What could further delay achieve? The EU, having spent two-and-a-half years negotiating two deals with Britain, is hardly likely to renegotiate.

But delay would reopen the possibility of a second referendum or an election in which the Remain parties, which now almost certainly includes Labour, could hope to reverse the 2016 referendum result.

Sir Oliver Letwin has form in these matters. In April, he and Labour’s Yvette Cooper secured an Act requiring a postponement of the Brexit date in the absence of a deal. The Benn Act is also in that tradition.

The Letwin amendment, like the Benn Act, is a procedural device through which Parliament seeks to “take control” from the Government, something which induces warm feelings in all of us. Yet it is, in my view, unconstitutional.

Standing Order No14 of the Commons, which the Speaker agreed to waive, was introduced in the Forties. It gives priority to government business. That is of particular importance for international negotiations. For MPs cannot themselves negotiate, nor can the EU negotiate with MPs, but only with the government of the day. Treaties, therefore, have always been negotiated by the government, and the Commons has not refused to ratify a treaty since 1864.

Further, any extension of the Brexit date has public spending implications in terms of budgetary contributions to the EU – around £1billion a month. But Standing Order No48 dating in part from 1713 provides that only the Crown, which means, for practical purposes, the government of the day, can recommend public spending. The reason is obvious. Only ministers, not backbench MPs, can be responsible to the Commons for the expenditure of public money.

If MPs disagree with a flagship policy of the government, their right course, instead of hiding behind procedural devices, is to replace the government, either through a vote of no confidence or a general election.

But Labour MPs refuse to support either course since they are united only by a belief that Jeremy Corbyn is unfit to become prime minister.

Survey evidence shows that 41 per cent want the deal passed, 24 per cent do not. MPs are failing to understand the rising tide of public anger at Parliament’s refusal to resolve Brexit over three years after the referendum.

“Smile at us,” Chesterton wrote in his poem The Secret People. “Pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.” But the people of Britain did speak in June 2016.

Is it not time for Parliament to acknowledge that?

Vernon Bogdanor is Professor of Government at King’s College, London. His book, Beyond Brexit: Towards a British Constitution, was published earlier this year by Tauris.