Law and Lawyers reports that the House of Lords EU Select Committee has issued a new report, Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny.
There are three key findings:

• It would be in the interests of Government, Parliament and the public for Parliament to vote on the Government’s Brexit negotiation guidelines before Article 50 is triggered.
• Too much is at stake — including many key aspects of domestic policy — for Ministers and officials to be allowed to take decisions behind closed doors, without parliamentary and democratic scrutiny.
• Allowing Parliament to provide timely and constructive commentary throughout the negotiations would increase the likelihood of Parliament and the public accepting the final deal.

But critically, as Law and Lawyers quotes from the report:

The forthcoming negotiations on Brexit will be unprecedented in their complexity and their impact upon domestic policy … it seems … inconceivable that [the executive] should take the many far-reaching policy decisions that will arise in the course of Brexit without active parliamentary scrutiny.
[The government must] recognise a middle ground between the extremes of micromanagement and mere accountability after the fact.
Within this middle ground, Parliament, while respecting the Government’s need to retain room for manoeuvre, should be able both to monitor the Government’s conduct of the negotiations, and to comment on the substance of the Government’s negotiating objectives as they develop. Only if these principles are accepted will Parliament be able to play a constructive part in helping the Government to secure the best outcome for the United Kingdom. Such scrutiny will also contribute to a greater sense of parliamentary ownership of the process, strengthening the Government’s negotiating position and increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will enjoy parliamentary and public support.

Which, in my view, is quite correct. However I perceive two flies in the ointment:

1. There is an underlying assumption that government will actually listen to, and act upon, the views expressed in Parliament and not just ride roughshod over Parliament’s wishes. Governments (of whatever persuasion) don’t have good track record on this.
2. Having full and open Parliamentary debate and scrutiny perforce puts the content of that debate in the public domain, and thus exposes, in advance, the likely negotiating strategy to “the enemy”, thus allowing the EU to easily negate the UK’s position. That is unlikely to bring about the best possible outcome for the UK, although it is the only strategy which is likely to provide buy-in from the electorate without accusations of fudge and the protection of the elite’s vested interests.

Honest, open and considered Parliamentary scrutiny is essential.

So a couple of weeks ago the Bank of England reduced interest rates lower than ever to 0.25%.
They hope this is going to stimulate the economy. It isn’t. At least, as Mary Dejevsky pointed out in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago ever-lower interest rates have failed; so why should they work now?
Anyone with a mortgage has never had it so good. They are paying peanuts in interest. Meanwhile those of us who paid off our mortgagees years ago and are now the much vilified savers are being shafted — savings interest is struggling to match inflation.
The banks seem to have forgotten that people like me, the savers, are an essential part of their business. Without our money coming in, they don’t have money to lend. They need us, just as they need the pension funds etc.
But all the banks have ever done is shaft my generation. When we started our mortgage in 1981 we were paying 14.5% interest on it; within six months that was 17.5%. And we were being encouraged to save for our retirement — which we did as much as we could. That was barely sustainable; and totally unsustainable compared with today’s rates. We were being priced out. No wonder the bubble burst and people ended up in negative equity and the banking sector with a merry-go-round of toxic debt.
Having saved, against the odds, we are now being shafted for having done so by not getting a decent return on our investments. We’d almost be as well off with our investments in the Bank of Mattress. And we’re supposed to feel happy about this; go out and spend our money; make the economy grow and recover.
Sorry but why the f*** should I? That money you want me to spend has to support me for maybe another 20 (or more) years. If you aren’t going to give me a decent return on investing it, then I’m going to hold onto it for dear life and milk as much as I can from all of it.
On the same day as Mary Dejevsky’s piece, Simon Jenkins wrote (also in the Guardian):

Want to avoid recession? Then shower UK households with cash.
Just give people the money. Give them cash, dole it out, increase benefits, slash VAT, hand it to those most likely to spend it: the poor. Put £1,000 into every debit account. Whatever you do, don’t give it to banks. They will just hoard it or use it to boost house prices.
Britain is suffering from a classic liquidity trap. There is insufficient demand. Yet all the Bank of England [has done is] wring its hands, blame Brexit and go on digging the same old holes.
They are labelled lower interest rates, quantitative easing and more cash for banks. Those policies have been in place for some seven years. They have failed … Not one commentator … thought cutting interest rates to 0.25% would make any difference to the threat of recession.

And again …

In the present climate, there is not the slightest risk of inflation — the traditional hazard of monetary expansion: £1,000 “printed” and moved from the Bank into every household account would still cost less (at £30bn) than Hinkley Point or HS2 … There could be vouchers, scrappage schemes, Christmas bonuses and, horror of horrors, cash for the undeserving poor. Why not try it? All else has failed.

Yes, and out of the change from cancelling HS2 you could probably give every university student a decent maintenance grant and/or scrap student fees!
It’s a novel idea. Raising saving rates would be another. For indeed all else has failed.
It’s time for a new and different approach.
It might even be a vote-catcher!