That deal did make it through Parliament to second reading. The Prime Minister withdrew it after opposition to his timetable, not the deal.
But in answer to 'In what way were any of above broken?', here's one example:
To be clear, the WA 'deal' was referenced in a 'Bill'. The
Bill passed second reading, it included (to placate opposition members) various statements of intent regarding the
future negotiation of trade and other arrangements with the EU.
The passing of the Bill at second reading was meaningless because it was clear that opposition to the timetable motion meant that the bill would not be passed in time to enable the deal to be agreed (as negotiated) by the deadline. The amendments to the
deal the opposition wanted (and
still want) would have required further negotiation with the EU.
Today's vote again shows that many opposition MPs still refuse to accept both the content and the timing. Though some do appear to have a better understanding of things following the recent election.
If that is the case, why has that been removed?
Because it was only agreed (to include it in the Bill) in order to obtain the support of opposition members, who promptly refused to support the bill - other than to give it a wholly pointless second reading.
For many people, one of the principal reasons for leaving the EU is so the UK government of the day is less bound by the decisions of others in making policy and law themselves. Being bound by a concession to an opposition that no longer exists is foolish when the objective is to maximise flexibility in the negotiations with the EU.
It's not the fact that worker's rights are under discussion that is the issue. It doesn't matter what was being removed from the Bill, it is the fact that anything is.
It is a new Bill, introduced by a new Government. There is no obligation to include anything in a new Bill just because it was included in an old Bill.
To use matacaster's analogy, the car dealer has agreed to sell me the unpopular car with all the goodies, there is an agreement signed, sealed and ready, but when I go to collect the car they say 'we've taken out the DAB radio and 6-CD multichanger, and now there's an FM radio with a regular CD player', would that not be a broken promise? You'd be a bit put out, no?
It would be more like going to collect a different new car from a different dealer at some point in the future and being miffed that the radio wasn't the same spec as the one offered by the original dealer when they sold you the original car.
And Zac Goldsmith, who lost his seat last week, has been made a peer so that he can remain as Environment Minister
I suppose he could have been parachuted into a safe Conservative seat (like Workington) when it was realised he had little hope of holding the very marginal Richmond Park. But then everyone would be complaining about Conservative MPs not being brave enough to stick around to fight to keep their own seats and instead fleeing to safe ones.
I also find it difficult to comprehend why people are getting upset at the concept of experienced politicians being given peerages to allow them to retain positions in the Government. Perhaps it is because under previous governments of the late 90's and 00's it was not unknown for
inexperienced politicians to be given peerages to
enter into Government positions.
)
