Restoring sovereignty: Syria executive decision shows that restoring powers, a core Brexit promise, is less about Brussels than Cabinet government at Westminster

The central promise of Brexit was that it would restore the UK's sovereignty. That political process in Britain would be 'reclaimed', for the people. Yet the central organ of political sovereignty, Parliament, continues to be sidelined.

The executive decision by the Prime Minister to order the Syria strikes, without Parliamentary approval, shows we're still a long way from restoring Parliamentary Sovereignty. At Westminster, the centralisation of power is still the rule.

For years politicians of all stripes in Britain spun the illusion that Westminster was shackled. Europe, largely without a voice in the British political media, took the blame for the intractability of Westminster.

Saying goodbye to Brussels means it can no longer be used as an excuse. Politicians will need to either find a new scapegoat, or finally get on with much needed reform - like turning back the tide of centralisation, that has concentrated power and money in Britain a long, long way from the hands of the people.

Reluctance to reform remains. The Conservatives in government under Theresa May would rather use contemptible words like 'betray' about their opposition - officially titled, it should be noted, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - and accuse them of 'doing down Britain' when they dare to criticise the government.

Brussels may be swapped out for a different scapegoat - whether it's Brexiters calling opponents 'enemies of the people' and 'undemocratic', or the Labour right-wing painting Corbyn, Momentum and the Left in much the same light - but the result is the same. The people are told: there is no alternative.

This is the theme behind all of the scapegoating. The centralising, globalising, marketising, status quo must continue. There is no alternative. In Europe or out, Westminster won't brook the fragmentation of the political power that keeps us on that path. It can't be considered, because the status quo might also fragment.

The decision to take military action without a Parliamentary debate is a whole matter unto itself. Two previous debates on bombing in Syria were split. Action against Assad was rejected in 2013, but action against Daesh was passed in 2015 - though not without criticism from the Foreign Affairs committee over the evidence base.

This time, the process was ignored - perhaps because it could not be counted on to give the 'right' answer. The dangers inherent to the choice to avoid a debate are real enough for the Syria issue alone - there is a clear consensus that military interventions come with substantial risk of creating ungoverned spaces that open the door organised criminals and terrorists.

But there is an underlying point of deep importance for Britain and the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Executive power was used and Parliament was left out of a critical decision - and with it, so too was democratic oversight. Again.

It is easy, and perhaps tempting for some, to pin this all on Theresa May. She has pursued a path in power of taking advantage of every executive privilege, every obscure power. She avoids oversight. Denies transparency, at every turn.

But Theresa May is a Prime Minister inheriting a system and exploiting it, working in a narrow political moment. The problem is bigger than her and is the legacy of her predecessors, with no distinction for parties and historical circumstances.

It does not bode well that Parliament again finds itself frozen out of a critical debate. The wielding of unchecked executive power is not the restoration of sovereignty. It is that from which sovereignty must be restored.

Easter Recess: Time to take stock and give thought to rising uncertainty

Uncertainty is the new reality. With it comes rising anxiety and the prioritising of gain over wellbeing.

It's the Parliamentary Easter Recess and that means a chance to take a breath, and take stock of the present political situation. In short, uncertainty is fast becoming the new definition of life in Britain.

The formal process of Brexit has begun with the triggering of Article 50, which means the scramble to define the new UK-EU trade relationship has begun. The bill repealing EU laws, and replacing them with UK equivalents, has been announced in a white paper. And, another round of welfare cuts are set to begin.

Each of these, in their own way, is contributing to the rising sense of precarity. Each is serving to shape everyday life, and the grander framework it functions within, around the idea of uncertainty - and it is a deliberate ideological project.

Take for example the most pressing of these, the welfare cuts. Up until now, welfare cuts have been focussed on those at the very bottom, who have little voice and who the right-wing press demands be afforded little sympathy.

However, these latest cuts are going to thrust deep into the soft belly of the middle class. Restrictions to child benefit, to bereavement benefits, and to working age benefits will have real impacts even on people who have so far managed to skirt the impact of austerity (Butler & Asthana, 2017).

From those with a disability to young people, there is something in these changes that is, directly or indirectly, going to affect everyone (Cowburn, 2017). The safety net is being disassembled and the Conservatives are justifying it as a way to 'encourage' people 'back to work'.

The white paper for the so called 'Great Repeal Bill' - a name of unlimited pomposity - has only added fuel to the fire. Human rights groups, like Liberty, have already expressed deep concern at tremendous gaps it found in the paper (Liberty, 2017).

A particular controversy lies with the bill granting the government 'secondary legislation' powers - in theory, the executive power to implement and administer what is required by the primary legislation - over matters being transferred from EU supervision (Owen, 2017).

Critics are warning that this provision risks handing the government the ability to sidestep Parliament in altering legislation (Fowles, 2017). At the least, it will allow the government to shape and direct aspects of the law without proper oversight - a power of huge potential.

Those concerns will be hard to assuage, because the final bill will be so long and dense - "one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK" (BBC, 2017). It could take years of Parliamentary time to scrutinise and this government has shown itself to be neither that patient nor transparent.

Conservatism, whatever Theresa May wants to preach about the return of Unionism, has long since given itself over wholly to an aggressive form of laissez-faire capitalism - and the sharpest lesson of that ideology is the belief that growth is achieved by rewarding energy and dynamism and punishing the 'idle' (George & Wilding, 1994).

In other words, to promote limited precarious rewards, directly at the expense of assurance. Through coercive uncertainty, to build profit on the back of anxiety - mistaking gain and accumulation for progress.

And understanding that should make any observer take a pause, consider and ask: what kind of trade deals the Conservatives are willing to drop the EU and the single market in order to negotiate?

The Conservative long term plan is now nearly fully realised. Uncertainty is the new reality. For an increasing number of people that means the life precarious, filled with anxiety about tomorrow, so some few other can exploit them.

May's Brexit: An unnecessary conflict between Executive and Parliamentary authority in Britain

At every turn, Theresa May has antagonised Parliament and picked fights unnecessary fights.

Today Theresa May has her authority in the Commons put to the test. So far as Prime Minister she has drawn some very stark lines, creating some poorly considered battles and today's vote seems amongst the least necessary.

The PM made her Brexit Bill intentions pretty clear. She wanted a simple bill, passed quickly. No flourishes, just a straight forward rubber stamping from Parliament to authorise her to trigger the UK's biggest constitutional change in lifetimes.

Considering how May ignored and excluded Parliament rather than engaging from the beginning, the rubber stamp should never have seemed likely to come easily. In fact her determination to keep this to executive authority alone has been almost obsessive.

From the beginning, May has tried to portray the referendum as giving her a personal mandate to wield reserve powers - despite the referendum never being a legally binding vote, whether or not you accept its result as a guide for future policy. That is particularly astounding When you consider that May is trying to change the constitution by executive power alone.

When this position, of cutting Parliament out of the process, was challenged, May's Government went to court - ostensibly to legally exclude Parliament. When the judges faced harassment and media attacks, the response from May's Cabinet - which should have been standing up for judicial independence - was at first absent and then poor.

Then, the Lords sought, in the form of amendments to the court-ordered Brexit Bill, to guarantee the UK's commitment to protecting EU citizens currently resident in the UK and to ensure that the Commons plays a definite role in ratifying any Brexit deal. The PM's response was almost ludicrous.

First she took to the press to virtually order the Lords to comply with her narrow aims on the bill. May then took the unusual and aggressive step of making herself personally present in the Lords to watch over the debate.

To do so, she sat on the steps of throne, a privilege afforded to her as a member of the Privy Council - the Queen's council of advisors. That knowledge expresses a lot about the nature of the dispute over how Brexit is proceeding: the Prime Minister turning to executive authority and reserve powers and privileges to bully and exclude Parliament.

The most obvious question is: why? Why bother? In her quest to treat the referendum as a personal mandate, May seems determined to undermine every other branch of government. She is picking fights in every direction.

Look at her initial approach to negotiating with the EU. She ignored the EU's position - that negotiations would only start when Article 50 was officially triggered and that the EU member states would negotiate collectively - and set off to try and negotiate with each member directly.

Theresa May seems determined to antagonise everyone and everything around her, drawing lines and making fights out of what should be collaborations. And that speaks volumes about the way the Conservatives are governing Britain.

Responsible government: PM May and Ministers must be held accountable to Parliamentary scrutiny

The principle of responsible government demands that executive power, held by the Prime Minister and the Government, be accountable to the assembled elected representatives.

A word that was thrown around a lot during the referendum campaign was 'sovereignty'. Those campaigning for a British exit from the European Union offered a number of things - not least an increase in public funding - but above all the restoration of 'sovereignty'.

The brexiteers promised a vote to leave would 'take back control' from 'unelected Brussels bureaucrats'. However, while clear who they wanted to take power away from, it has been less clear to who that control will be restored.

From the way Theresa May's government has handled the matter of triggering Article 50 and launching Brexit negotiations, it seems that the intention is to hand the power straight to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

The trouble with that plan is that so much executive power stands against one of the most basic principles of the Westminster System: responsible government. In short, that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (the executive) should be accountable to Parliament (the legislative).

Over a long period of time, the power of governance in the UK has become increasingly centralised, further and further excluding Parliament. Thanks to the first-past-the-post electoral system, thanks to Parliamentary majorities, the government has been able to increasingly sideline the Commons.

Even with her presently weak majority, Theresa May has managed to so far exclude the Commons from any substantive details regarding what kind of deal the Government will seek in its negotiations with the European Union.

Labour highlighted the paucity of information about what an exit will entail by listing one hundred and seventy questions that the Government needs to answer. A challenge is even being taken to the High Court to prevent May's Government from excluding Parliament from the process.

It is hard to see how anyone could argue that any kind of 'control' had been 'restored' without the return of decisive Parliamentary scrutiny. Swapping one, fairly or unfairly much criticised, continental executive for a national one with no greater accountability represents no step forward whatsoever.

If Britain's socially disastrous withdrawal from internationalism is to serve any useful purpose, the least it could do is highlight the inadequacy of scrutiny provided by Britain's electoral system and its deeply centralised Government.

Without Brussels to blame, there will be no excuse. Too many voices are already excluded from representation by the electoral system, without Parliament itself also being excluded. Responsible government has to become the reality - and it is best to start as you mean to go on.