Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Well...

At least the NDP see it the way I do, in this instance. Parliamentary supremacy is a joke. The big parties and for some unknown reason, the Bloc, have decided to play "hide the salami" with the truth. We will never learn whether or not our government is covering up war crimes, unless, by some miracle, someone at the Hague takes note of our Potemkin democracy.

Instant Update: Now come the inevitable justifications from the Liberals and the snotty denunciations of those who dissent. I watch in horrified fascination.

Update the Second: Yup, the Liberals are accusing the NDP of negotiating in bad faith (what a fucking joke). Also, I suspect we will hear only praise for Gilles Duceppe from the government. I guess they are not "evil separatists" today.
Recommend this Post

9 comments:

  1. Well, when the deal has the backing of... a majority of parliament -- however grudgingly -- Parliament is still supreme.

    Supremely smacked around by Harper? Maybe.

    But if they really didn't like it, they could vote for a contempt motion. Or, in extremis, a non-confidence motion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, when the deal has the backing of... a majority of parliament -- however grudgingly -- Parliament is still supreme.

    It is a funny kind of supremacy where the government gets to tell it what its rights are. Can a parliament sign away its own right? I guess we are about to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a majority of parliamentarians wants, said majority gets... if they're willing to stand on their request.

    I mean, Parliament could pass a motion demanding that the PM bounce up and down on one foot on the floor of the House singing "The Log Driver's Waltz" if it wanted, and then push us to an election over it when he then told them to get bent.

    (Actually, I'd vote for the Log Driver's Waltz motion...)

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a majority of parliamentarians wants, said majority gets... if they're willing to stand on their request.

    But it seems to me it can only do this particular dance once. It can never again say that it can see anything it wants to see. It can only say "We can see anything a board of experts tell us we can see, except for those documents the government holds back as lawyer client privilege". It has agreed that it is no longer supreme, but beholden to outside arbiters and government lawyers. That is a pretty crappy form of "supremacy".

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is sort of like agreeing to shoot yourself in the head. Sure you are "supreme" in that decision, but only once.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One parliament can't bind a future one.

    Parliamentary supremacy is limited only by the written bits of the constitution.

    If the next parliament -- or heck, if Iggy wakes up on the other side of his bed in two weeks, and gets Gilles to go with him on it -- has enough and says, "This deal sucks! We want it all, and we want it now!" (use that Queen song, "I Want It All"), and a majority then so votes, then they get it all, or they get to hold the government in contempt and have an election.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This sets a very bad precedent, one that will be trotted out from now until the end of time. That in itself is bad enough to oppose this deal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Was there anyone looking at this?

    Plenty of other Westminster-style parliaments with experience to draw from...

    Looks like India's having a similar debate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think they looked at a number of setups including the American Senate model, but in the end, I don't think the government had any intention of cooperating. I suspect they will now stall until the fall, call an election and hope, (once again) that it will all go away. If they don't get a majority, they will stall some more until the Liberals cave again.

    ReplyDelete