stinger number 36

A slight sinking feeling about the small amount of commentary concerning the "Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU" petition, which was debated at Parliament on 1st April between 16:30 and 19:45. It wasn't discussed in the main Chamber, instead in Westminster Hall, in a time-slot allocated for significant petitions.

I thought that Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North- Lab) produced a good speech and covered the topic well. The full transcript is here, in Hansard.

Normally I would use the word 'debate', but the Government's representatives took it upon themselves to leave early and, indeed, not to even champion two of the three sections for which they held responsibility.

Heidi Allan (South Cambridgeshire - TIG/Change UK) commented just after 18:00, "I appreciate that everybody’s diaries are incredibly busy in Westminster, but I find it extraordinary that there is now literally nobody on the side of the House that is responsible for responding to the petition, given it is of such a size. Does that not tell us how poorly the 6 million people in this country who are terrified by the prospect of Brexit feel? This is supposed to be democracy—I find it absolutely startling."

And later Jenny Chapman (Darlington -Lab) put it, "I called it a “debate”, but clearly we have not had a debate. Our sharing of perspectives has been among people who broadly agree with one another, and the counter-arguments have not been heard because those who came initially to put them decided to leave. I am sad about that."

Later, at about 15 minutes before the end of the allotted time, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris) was given the job of speaking against the petition.

He used that potentially disrespectful "I hear what the hon. Lady says" phrase shortly before stating: "The Government’s position remains clear: we will not revoke article 50 and we will not hold a second referendum. We remain committed to leaving the European Union and implementing the result of the 2016 referendum."

He went on to say, "Parliament’s position is now also clear. In the series of indicative votes on 27 March, Parliament voted on the options of revoking article 50 and holding a second referendum. Neither option achieved a majority in the House. Indeed, the House voted, with a majority of more than 100, against revoking article 50."

It would seem that his job in this meeting was to throw down a stinger, just before the petition's time limit.

And wait! Since that session on Monday, he's resigned his Cabinet role on Wednesday (Number 36) - citing that Mrs May's position makes his job in government irrelevant. For some reason I'm reminded of Number 6.