Loyal opposition?

There is presently some debate in our media about whether our government will, will have to or should bring the matter of our membership of the EU to the floor of the House of Commons, given that the present understanding is that once exit negotiations are triggered - negotiations governed by Article 50 of Title 6 of the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 - a treaty made shortly after the two big waves of enlargement - they can only be paused or stopped by unanimous vote by the membership and that without such a vote, exit is effective with or without agreement, two years from the off.

An arrangement designed to deter members from trying to leave - and one which would certainly have deterred me! I associate to the efforts of the southern states of the US to leave their community some 150 years ago; efforts which were ruled out of order. And then to other more recent unions - such as India and Burma - which have managed to survive. And then, not so helpfully, to the one which did not, the USSR. Not to mention the uncertain future of the UK itself.

One might think that in a parliamentary democracy, the PM and her Cabinet ought to consult Parliament about such a matter, if only to argue that negotiations cannot be conducted in public and can we have a blank cheque please. Failure to consult might be construed as a sign of weakness, that they are afraid that the Cabinet view will not prevail on the floor. Votes of confidence, resignations and general elections loom into view.

I find it strange that the party of opposition, that is to say the Labour Party, led by Corbyn, appear to be standing aside in this debate, content to let a feeble rump of Liberal Democrats and Tory dissidents make such running as they can. Strange that the opposition, which has a duty to oppose, whatever its views on membership might be, does not choose to argue for parliamentary time to debate this matter, arguably the most important thing likely to happen to us for a long time.

All in all, an excellent opportunity for Parliament to fight back against the excessive power of the executive.

What, if anything, is our leader thinking of?