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.

World on Fire: This week just shows how important empowered local government and international cooperation really are

Ada Colau, the Mayor of Barcelona, and Barcelona En Comu are the most recognisable face of the municipal movement. Photograph: #‎PrimaveraDemocratica‬ amb Pablo Iglesias i Ada Colau by Barcelona En Comú (License) (Cropped)

The last week brought another of those sad and scary moments we're becoming dangerously accustomed to. What 2016 taught us was that we can always find something bad happening somewhere if we have broad enough news coverage.

But in the past week the most powerful man in the world escalated tensions, with a much smaller country, to the brink of a nuclear war. He then failed to identify and condemn fascist terrorism occurring right under his nose, virtually in his own back yard.

These things cannot become a new normal.

We are living in a fragmented and further fragmenting world. The far right are not ascendant, but they are flourishing, and the most powerful man is acting like a lone wolf - in all of the worst possible meanings of that phrase.

These are exactly the reasons why we so need municipalism and internationalism. We need real and empowered local democracy, coupled with a sense of international cooperation, in order to change our perspective - and fight off the dying embers of the nationalist conflagration that so many times has nearly burned our world.

It can be understood why people feel so attached to nations and flags and the pride they inspire, but nationalism has taken us all to some very dark places. And in the present, that means far right terrorism - near indistinguishable, whether Islamist fundamentalism or white supremacist and Christian nationalist - and raised the spectre of a limited exchange nuclear war.

For more than a century and a half, nationalism has been a poison in our veins. Domestically, our lives and the wealth we create is directed away from our wellbeing and progression, into the service of destruction - even while some are left completely without.

Abroad, people - ordinary citizens - are reduced unfairly, unjustly and inaccurately to being colluders in the deadly games of tyrants and terrorists. And it is these people, usually the frontline of victims for these criminals, over whose head the Sword of Damocles dangles. They deserve compassion, but get the point of a spear.

The big challenges of our time - environmental, energy, economic, population - are the problems of the whole world. No zealous corner, putting itself first, can address these issues alone. Cooperation is the best strategy.

But cooperation between who? For more than a century, people have been rendered synonymous with their nations - for better and mostly worse. That has to stop. People need to be empowered in their communities and have a voice through them.

The last few years, the past few weeks in particular, make it hard to believe, but the great trend of history is that things get better. That is the lesson of the work of the late Hans Rosling. And even our empathy too is widening.

There was a slogan in the sixties: "Think globally, act locally". It's never been more relevant. We need to see that our problems don't respect artificial borders. We need to pitch in and make change happen on our own doorstep, in cooperation with our neighbours and neighbouring communities.

We can take back control, but it isn't achieved by falling back into nationalism. It doesn't involve drawing crude borders between territories, drawing crude distinctions between peoples - looking always for difference rather than commonality.

We need to give people real power over their lives. We need to give people consent over their lives and how their communities are shaped. We need to build bridges within communities and between them. And, from the bottom up, reshape our perspective.