This morning's decision by the High Court, which has said that Parliament must vote on any decision to exercise Article 50 resulting in the UK leaving the EU, is very welcome.
I am absolutely certain that the decision to leave the EU in the referendum was wrong, and will say so often over the next few years, but that is inconsequential on this issue. I suspect that parliament will approve notice under Article 50, however much many may come to regret it doing so until such time when, as I suspect most likely, it will be reversed. The point of principle here though is that such is the constitutional and legal sinificance of all matters to do with Brexit that nothing of any consqeunce with regard to it should be decided by anyone but parliament.
I am not naive enough to think our parliamentary democracy is perfect: very obviously, from first past the post onwards, there are faults with it. Nor do I trust the judgement of all our elected representatives. But despite all its shortcomings parliament is sovereign in the UK and the idea that such a massively important decision would have been made without recourse to parliament was repugnant. For the same reason it is my belief that each and every stage of the Brexit process should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
In that case what should happen if the Supreme Court were to over-rule the decision? I would hope that the most extraordinary mass demonstration of anger at the abuse of the rights of the British people should follow. It may not, but that is what I think should happen. And I believe that it should gather support from both sides of the debate. After all, did 'taking back power' mean passing it to an elite? I don't think anyone really imagined that. In which case saying so will be vital.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thought experiment: what happens if there was a referendum on nationalisation of rail and the power sector & the Post Office & the bailed out banks & keeping the NHS public etc etc (polls show 60% – 70% wanting most of these things) – would a tory-gov regard this as sacred? in the way that the Tory-gov seem to regard an “advisory” referendum on exiting the EU as some how or other far more than advisory? Or are they hoping that by treating it as sacred – they will drive a stake into the Kippers whilst splitting Labour at the electorate level. If this is the case then we are seeing a large-scale exercise in Tory hypocrisy (in fairness they buy it wholesale) – with respect to voters wishes – most of the time – they don’t give a stuff what voters think & never have. But to secure power they are happy to shaft the £ and split the UK.
Whilst open to some of your position I do find your description of 52 percent of the placed votes as ” an elite” sonewhat illogical.
The elite is the government
Of course it is not those who voted Leave
Nothing could have resulted in you reading that in
An extraordinarily confused argument IMO.
So far as I’m able to follow it, you seem to be saying that were the Supreme Court to decide on appeal in favour of the government’s case, then that would be “passing (power) back to an elite”. Are we to take it that you regard the judiciary in its entirety (which by the way, through judicial review is our one and only constitutional bulwark against *misuse* of power by an executive) as “an elite”? That (if it was what you meant) seems to me to be a preposterous suggestion.
And if wasn’t, then what did you mean?
You clearly are targeting our judicial system – which (despite many imperfections) is among the best to be found anywhere, with judges of on the whole unimpeachable probity. To express approval of the prospect of “mass demonstration of anger” which you say *ought* to follow should the highest court in the land decide anything other than what you require it to decide strikes as not only the height of irresponsibility and mischief-making but of arrogance as well.
You might think that the decision to hold the referendum was a bad one. But it was parliament which made it. By doing so parliament abrogated its own prerogative to decide on the issue, and passed it instead to the people as a whole. You and others of a similar mindset detest the fact that the people as a whole didn’t agree with your view, and your aim is to subvert it by any and all means.
FWIW I think the High Court erred in its judgment of this case, and my opinion about that has just the same weight – no more and no less – than yours or anyone else’s. However, I’m not hoping as you are that people who like me disagree with the judgment engage in mass-demonstrations against it nor would I dream of encouraging anyone to do so.
Of course if you want to preach mass street-demonstrations as a way of (purportedly) supporting the democratic process, that’s your privilege. I suggest that the effect of that might in fact be the exact opposite, and that to seek to bring the judicial process into disrepute is just about the most damaging thing that can be imagined to any democracy.
The first thing that would-be tyrants do is kick out (or have murdered) independent judges.
The issue is whether or not the government will allow a vote
If it does not the protest would not be against a Court – but against the government
How very bizarre that you would have thought otherwise
Richard is saying that if yesterday’s decision were overturned by the Supreme Court (highly unlikely I would have thought) it would validate the anti democratic attitude of the government in trying to push through Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative. A position which, as any rational person can see, makes a total mockery of the anti EU campaign’s argument that we should leave the EU because EU law was above the UK Parliament’s law.
But of course, the hysterical reaction of the anti EU crowd to the court’s decision shows them in their true colours, as a pack of rabid right wing nationalists whose hatred of the internationalist EU is such that they want the UK out, by any means possible, regardless of the consequences.
All their so-called arguments even if some people like yourself have been daft enough to believe them, are bunk. And I think you’ll find that the people advocating mob rule, attacking the judiciary,and advocating street demonstrations with the implicit threat of violence, are the Brexiteers and their principleless accomplices in the sewer press. Hypocrisy of the hightest order.
That depends upon the sort of pressure being brought upon the SC judges…
We all know the sort of pressure being thrown at the courts so far…and we haven’t even entered into searching their rubbish/emails/texts by intrusive reporting yet…the “news” papers have still to enlist scantily-clad young women/men to lure judges, although I am sure the plans are advancing rapidly….these are the same “news” organisation that read texts on dead young girls phones, eavesdrop on future kings etc…
Never forgetting that their love of the UK does not go as far as paying much tax in the UK….or even registering their business (phone hacking, lying) in the UK.
Parliament is weak at the moment.
There are plenty of MPs who would be terrified of an election anytime soon. So Parliament is unlikely to buck what the government wants.
I genuinely think such MPs have more to gain than lose by sticking their necks out. This more than ever is a time to stand up for what you believe.
A £5 prize to anyone who can make heads or tails of this mumbo jumbo and spelling catastrophe of a contribution. Richard, have you thought of submitting your posts for consideration by the Guinness Book of records as the worst writer in the English Language 2016? I will support your application.
That is I guess why I have sold tens of thousands of books….
He has you know, I’ve bought quite a few……………
We should sell Gib back to Spain. £10 and a crate of Guinness.
The overall count was 52% to 48% with a proportional-like vote, but the 48% for “Remain” was concentrated in a few seats. May would get a landslide so a lot of Labour MPs would get kicked out. Be careful what you wish for.
Parliament is a trinity. The Lords could play havoc with a bill to initiate Article 50. Or might a certain lady of German descent refuse to sign? If it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny.
You’re piling confusion on confusion. Or is it deliberate obfuscation?
What you wrote was:- “In that case what should happen if the Supreme Court were to over-rule the decision”? Then went on to say that what you think ought to happen *in that case* should be “the most extraordinary mass demonstration of anger at the abuse of the rights of the British people”. So in your scenario the “abuse” you are envisaging (as one possible final outcome of the process) will if it does in fact come to pass have been perpetrated by the Supreme Court, by over-ruling today’s High Court judgment. And it would follow inescapably from that that the “mass demonstration of anger” you would hope would then take place would be directed at the Supreme Court’s judgment.
What other construction than this can possibly be put on the words you wrote?
I know what I intended
It was clear what I meant
I explained it
Now stop wasting my time
I voted Leave so that the UK Parliament would be the sovereign body to decide laws governing the UK, so yes I welcome this decision as it supports the principles I voted for. Parliament should re-affirm their supreme sovereignty and proceed with an orderly exit from the EU.
Well done George but please remember that the EU is not a sovereign body – the states it is made up of are where the sovereignty lies and always has.
Your Government has used its sovereignty to bring European law to this country as agreed with other member states as being part of the Union.
People who talk about the sovereignty issues have been completely intellectually mislead. I can recommned that you dig out the post BREXIT vote Commons Select Committee meetings where these facts were teased out in great detail.
What BREXITEERs have actually voted against is their Governement (the UK Parliament) bringing EU laws to this country using their sovereignty – not the imposition of EU law by the EU.
I might be wrong here and open for correction, though I do not think the EU is a Sovereign Entiy and all new regulations from the commission has to be voted and agreed by MEP’s and all 27 member states – the UK also has some specific opt outs. The UK always had “supreme sovereignty”
Second point I would like to make is why do people who want some form sovereignty back (which I contend they never lost) but then still want to trade through WTO which again is Club where rules are made collectively by its members and then where necessary incorporated into UK law?
Surely if you want your sovereignty back you would also want to leave the WTO? Also what about, IMF, UN, COP21, World Bank, Geneva Convention and Human rights convention. Are these not also collective agreements agreed by governments throughout the world and interfering with the Supreme Sovereignty of the UK Parliament?
Though far from perfect I think the existing deal we had with the EU with our own currency and ability to set our own interest rates was a great deal, not perfect sure, but a much better deal than we will ever be able to negotiate through Brexit.
Well put
Precisely Matt, but you see, you are using intelligence and honesty. The anti EU movement has never been about either of these things. It is about dishonesty and stupidity.
So far as I’m able to follow it, you seem to be saying that were the Supreme Court to decide on appeal in favour of the government’s case, then that would be “passing (power) back to an elite”.
Exactly so.
For all its flaws, Parliament is elected, and its members have something close to a legitimate popular mandate to make decisions on our behalf.
The Crown, constitutionally, is the power of the monarch vested in the Prime Minister. It derives its mandate from a bastardised version of the divine right of Kings. It certainly has no popular mandate: witness the fact that we the people had no say in the reconfiguration of government that saw Theresa May become Prime Minister following Cameron’s resignation.
That the Crown should attempt to arrogate the right to make decisions over the head of Parliament is an abuse that was rightly challenged.
The UK Supreme Court will turn down the government’s appeal because the High Court’s ruling is simple and commonsense. In its judgement it argued that government cannot without the intervention of parliament confer duties and rights on individuals or deprive individuals of the same. So, for example, the executive part of government alone cannot remove the right of UK businesses to the EU’s Customs Union or Passporting since individuals own and run businesses.
Looking at the judgement:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
(b) Common ground: notice is irrevocable and cannot be conditional
10. Important matters in respect of Article 50 were common ground between the parties:
(1) a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given: and
(2) Article 50 does not allow for a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by, for example, saying it will only take effect if Parliament approves any agreement made in the course of the negotiations completed by Article 50(2).
The rest of the judgement appears to rely on Article 50 being irrevocable – this being common ground between the parties, in that if it is irrevocable then any exit will changes the law of the land – which need the consent of Parliament
But, surely there is uncertainly about this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
If evidence is given to the supreme court that it’s unclear whether “notice is irrevocable”, then will this not be enough to overturn the ruling?
It may be
But maybe it will also require a referral to the ECJ for them to decide….
There is a fuller explanation by someone much more qualified titled
“Brexit: can the ECJ get involved?”
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/
It’s final sentence encompasses your parting thought:
It’s probably only a matter of time before some aspect of the Brexit issue gets decided by the EU courts; and there’s no small irony in that prospect.
Were it not for the fact that this is about the EU, I feel that a different view may easily be held.
The sovereignty of Parliament is lent to it by the people, as Tony Benn once said. The will of the people should not be over ruled by a elite judicial system. It is not really. If Parliament is sovereign, and represents the people, then it could ignore the judge.
If the people had a referendum on the NHS reinstatement bill, voting to undo the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, would we still like a judge telling the government that they must have a vote in Parliament (that could rule it out)?
This is a dangerous precident.
The danger was in Cameron not realising parliament always had the duty to decide
That’s how parliamentary democracies work
But saying how parliamentary democracies work harks back, in practice, to how they *used* to work, and how we have all been *used* to thinking of them working, IN THE DAYD BEFORE REFERENDUMS BEGAN BEING HELD.
There is an interesting parallel between the Brexiteers and the Corbynistas. Both claim legitimacy based on the concept of the popular vote having greater legitimacy than traditional ways of decision making – i.e parliament. The Brexiteers seem to be demanding that parliament should now be ignored (didn’t we once have a Civil War about this very issue?); the Corbynistas are riding roughshod over the PLP because they have garnered the popular vote of the party.
It is clear that the very notion of parliamentary sovereignty is under attack from both wings. Without a written constitution, it is not clear what precisely should happen here and it is left to three judges to give their view. But, hey, what do they know? In many ways parliament has only itself to blame because it is hopelessly unreformed, with its patently unfair FPTP voting system and its unelected upper house. Brexit, Corbyn and the SNP are all symptomatic of this malaise.
This is going to descend into an almighty bunfight about governance and legitimacy How are we meant to negotiate Brexit when we can’t agree on how we should be governed or who should be governing us. Not so much “take back control” as “throw the controls on the bonfire.”
I agree with much of that
I think the SNP phenomena might have happened any way
My view is that the whole of Parliament and not just one party must be involved in ratifying the decision. The correct way is to leave as the referendum decided but in a way that mitigates the concerns of those who voted to stay. Now THAT is democracy in my view (although for me the whole referendum exercise was just totally unecessary. We didn’t need this at all and I voted to stay).
It is obvious to anyone that even if it were Labour in power, there is prima facie electoral advantage to be being seen to be the political party that takes us out of Europe.
However, this all depends on what happens to the economy as BREXIT begins to take hold.
But the self interest of any party cannot be put before the democratic need to have the decision and the method reviewed by the House.
What we have now is people who were banging on about getting our sovereignty back who then want to deny the sovereignty of Parliament to be involved. We have reached new levels of absurdity in politics.
Sandra – forgive but I do not agree with your point about the people giving parliament its sovereignty. This is a bit too rose-tinted for me.
Such variance of opinion are correct since this country does not have a written constitution.
Parliament – as a power group of people reportedly representing others throughout the country – decided to acquire for itself the divine right of kings and then wield it.
The fact the the Tories think that they alone can wield this perogative in such an important issue shows you just how badly unwritten constitutions can work. All I hear from them is FPTP thinking with little concern over for those who wanted to stay.
My point is that, in this referendum there are two ‘wills of the people’ at work – those who want to leave and those who want to stay. Certain politicans think that they should only represent the will of the winning group. That is wrong. And somewhat undermines your point although I fully agree that once the judiciary start poking around in political matters things can get out of hand. But had we had people of quality in Parliamnet in the first place, this would never have happened.
Roll on PR!
It is apparently 242 years ago yesterday that Edmund Burke addressed his Bristol meeting on the role of an MP. “Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement. He betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
What wonderful progress we’ve made…
Whilst I accept that our parliamnetary system is flawed, deeply so at times, I still prefer this to the alternatives and am unconfortable with the use of referendum. I would hope that my MP makes decisions on my behalf based on all the available evidence, admittedly tempered by personal beliefs, as oppossed to emotional decisions which can be governed by prejudice.
I wonder where we would be now had there been a referendum (obviously timescales would have prevented this) on the issue of banking bailouts following the crash? How about (perish the thought) a vote on a return to capital punishment? Or perhaps a referendum about the future of our nuclear arsenal?
The decision to put the EU question to a referendum was a cowardly one by David Cameron.
Your conclusion is spot on