Britain and Europe: Even after Brexit, progressives can't stop fighting for broader horizons for cooperation and solidarity

At the weekend, thousands turned out in London to show their support for Britain remaining in the European Union and determination to keep calling for a Second Vote - a deciding say on the final deal

From the government's perspective, and perhaps for some Leavers, the matter is now closed with Theresa May finally appearing to have won the legislative tennis match with the Lords over her Brexit Bill.

Is it over? We expect for Remainers it won't be over until the fat lady sings. Seeing an economic disaster coming, ushered in by a weak government, it won't be settled until Britain is firmly not a member state.

That isn't a surprise. There are plenty of reasons to still question Brexit. Like when the Prime Minister promises a new increase in NHS funding to be part paid by a 'Brexit dividend' that experts say won't happen.

But it's important that 'Remainers', and all those who see broader horizons for people in Britain, don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

The European Union is far from perfect. The EU referendum excluded many, most of all those on Left and poorer working people, in presenting a choice between two establishment, market capitalist and business-centric options.

This was at the core of what we wrote at the time of the referendum. We encouraged those on the Left, for progressives of all stripes, to vote to Remain - in a limited sense, to choose the lesser of two evils.

Leaving the European Union will for sure open the way things becoming harder for the poorest and most vulnerable. And it probably won't even provide any kind of economic boost to offset their losses.

But Europe is an idea and an ideal. The Union itself maintains a minimum level. It has protected standards. But so much is in the hands of, and dependent upon the beneficence of, bureaucrats and national governments, that even the EU is no guarantor of progress.

And it isn't the only way to build the vision of a wider and more connected world. A world of many cultures, many places of residence and work, cooperating with each other in peace.

Fearless Cities is the root of one such fresh alternative. An attempt by those involved in the municipal movement to build links of cooperation, local government to local government, that creates solidarity for democratic control of towns and cities - and brings them together to improve their chances of achieving much larger goals in an interconnected world.

It can't be the only one. We must start building, and rebuilding, these - as the establishment bureaucrats would say - bilateral relationships. Broad networks of many links, in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity to protect our rights and increase our freedom.

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.

Universal suffrage, for all adult citizens, is a basic principle that should be without controversy - including votes at 16

On Wednesday, the Lords voted to defeat the government on the matter of Votes at 16 (Watt, 2015) - which would allow those of the ages 16 and 17 to vote in the EU referendum. Putting aside for the moment the odd fact that the unelected chamber has intervened once again in pursuit of a progressive purpose, the vote in the Lords has brought back to the table an important matter.

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it succinctly (Farron, 2015):

"It is hypocrisy of the worst kind to argue against votes at 16 for the EU referendum. The government accepts that at 16 you are mature enough to serve in the Armed Forces, be married and pay tax, and they should now give these same people the right to vote."

The past two centuries in Britain have seen a long, and slow, progressive march towards ending democratic discrimination. First came the ending of class and wealth discrimination that excluded the 99% who were not aristocrats or wealthy property owners. Then came, in slow and apportioned amounts, the end of gender and race discrimination at the ballot box.

None of those gains have been perfect. Lords and Bishops still sit in Parliament without election. Women are still sorely under represented in elected offices, as are representatives from minorities. Wealthy and propertied men still far exceed those from poorer backgrounds. And, age remains a barrier for those of the ages of 16 and 17 - despite their ability to actively participate in society.

It is a basic liberal democratic principle that, should you have to abide by the rules and customs of a society, you should have the right to a voice in deciding those rules and customs. A society can only be said to have true universal suffrage when all those who are adult citizens have access to same rights for compliance with the same duties.

Only through being consistent and inclusive, as well as promising representative results, can democracy invigorate and engage rather disenchant. Electoral reform is sorely needed, and an important part of those reforms will be votes at 16.

The confrontation between government and opposition over Tax Credits is exposing the need to reform the House of Lords

David Lloyd George took on a Tory Landowner dominated House of Lords in his efforts to pass his Liberal 'People's Budget' of 1909. Photograph: Statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square by Matt Brown (License) (Cropped)

Attempts earlier this week by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench Lords to block the much derided Tax Credit cuts, where derailed yesterday due to fears of sparking a constitutional crisis (Wintour, 2015; Wintour, 2015{2}). Opposition parties where warned against threatening contravention of established parliamentary conventions by the Commons Speaker John Bercow (Wintour, 2015{3}.

The move marked an odd moment for progressive politics in the UK. Since Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to take on the House of Lords in his attempt to pass his 1909 budget, the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords has been clearly defined: the Lords cannot impede the government's supply bills, which are concerned with taxation and government spending and, through the later establishment of the Salisbury Convention, the opposition should not block government manifesto promises for which their election is seen as a clear mandate.

The decision of progressives to use the Lords, against which Lloyd George had struggled when it was controlled by an overwhelming Tory majority, represents a severely pragmatic choice.

While the actual threat of constitutional crisis from the Lords blocking Tax Credit cuts has been called into question - on account of whether the changes actually counts as primary, budgetary legislation due to an election campaign promise not to cut them, and no reference to cutting them in the Conservative manifesto (Daily Politics, 2015) - there is a need to stop and consider the implications beyond the legal minutiae.

Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (in particular) have proposed, considered and attempted reform of the House of Lords in the past. Liberal Democrat attempts where foiled during the last government, due to obstinacy from Labour and Conservatives (BBC, 2015); and during the last election campaign Labour pledged to replace the Lords with a Senate of the Nations and Regions (Labour, 2015).

The willingness of the opposing parties to even approach a risk of crisis certainly shows is the depth of opposition to the Tax Credit changes, even growing with the Conservative Party itself (Watt, 2015), and the limited legitimate instruments available to the opposition to challenge their passage.

But the hypocrisy it engenders also marks out the need for reform. The UK has an entire, massive and expensive, unelected chamber that cannot act. Any of its votes, and the legitimacy of any of its actions, can be called into question because its assembled numbers are not elected. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Contrary to Prime Minister David Cameron's belief that the issue has passed by and should be left alone (Wintour & Watt, 2015), it remains of importance. Issues like Tax Credit cuts are too important for the legislative instruments through which they pass, or in which they are opposed, to be anything less than transparent, clearly purposed and above controversy.

Whether that means establishing a directly proportionally elected upper chamber, or one representative of the nations and regions - in either case holding a longer term view, as opposed to the shorter term community and municipality based Commons - change is needed.

The problem facing the progressive parties, is what to do with those institutions in the meantime. The pragmatic decision - that has clearly been made by Labour and the Lib Dems - is to continue using those instruments as they presently are, despite their problematic nature, because the policies they oppose demand a response and they are the only legal instruments at their disposal.

It is a pragmatic position that Lloyd George would likely have agreed with. Despite being a reformer, Lloyd George was prepared to flood the Lords with newly ennobled Liberals to get his way and, later, the Welsh Prime Minister was still prepared to go into coalition with the Conservatives to pursue his policies.

Their are alternative paths, such as the decision by Justin Trudeau - Liberal leader and newly elected Prime Minister of Canada - to withdraw the Liberal whip from unelected Liberal senators (Mackrael & Wingrove, 2014). Yet such idealistic statements risk getting in the way of practical politics, like opposing policies that have been alleged to risk impoverishing millions of people.

The only solution to this conflict between idealism and pragmatism is to reform the Lords, along with broader electoral reform - for which the necessity is demonstrated by the fact that the controversial Tax Credits policy can only be pursued by the government because the Conservatives hold an unrepresentative majority of seats. Unless there is real reform and clear representation, the policies of any government and the tactics of any opposition will continue to be challenged and undermined.