The decision by High Court judges that the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy has upset many who claim to be proud to be British.
The referendum on Brexit only asked one question: should we leave or remain in the EU. There weren't a whole load of subsidiary questions: what kind of trade deal? How should we approach migration? What about the millions of Britons abroad? What do we do about Europol?
If asked I reckon most Britons who voted to leave wanted the same trade arrangements as today, with free movement to Europe for British subjects - why should we queue at customs? - but tight restrictions for Europeans coming to our blessed shores. Some probably would have added to that with expulsions - but only for Europeans, not for Brits who have retired to Malaga. Tim Martin of Weatherspoons apparently wanted the old agreements for buying in foreign alcohol. Ah Mr Martin - we have lost control. Europe is now not something we will get a vote in - it is a trading partner and competitor. And it is much bigger than us. Brexit means Brexit.
Which of course it doesn't. Assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide that we actually live in an elected dictatorship or ochlocracy, the Government will have to come back to Parliament showing its working out, and then MPs will get to vote. I really hope that happens. Because if it doesn't it means Brexit means whatever the Barclay Brothers (residents of Monaco), and a tax exiled Viscount decide between their newspapers. And we fought long and hard for our democracy and an independent judiciary. I wouldn't like to think we were being controlled by people in other countries - would you?
Thank you. I couldn't agree more. If only, instead of Cameron wandering around Europe collecting half-baked promises to help us stay in, the government had asked Brexiters to come up with a plan pre-referendum. Most likely they would have discovered none of them agreed about anything and the whole issue would spend a decade or more in the long grass. If by some miracle they came up with something, the resulting referendum would have been somewhat more legitimate. And the costs of fooling around with Brexit would have been far less (how much is Brexit going to cost in terms of civil servants, legal fees, etc and where is the money coming from?) I suspect the real issue here is not so much Brexit but referendums - they not as democratic as they're cracked up to be. In or out, we know the people who benefit will be a small minority of those who voted for it.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem right that Parliament has a say in how and what we negotiate, but off course, the Parliamentary Whips can stage a vote in a way that it isn't binding on the government.
ReplyDeleteIt seems strange that they provoked the legal wranglings by not agreeing to such a vote. If they had, the Remainers might have held back on taking legal action.
Perhaps there is a hidden agenda to reduce the independence of the judiciary because the silence of the Lord Chancellor (a politician) does seem to me to be indicative of this sort of agenda
Rule by Daily Mail isn't something I care to contemplate.
I hold no brief for the Mail. Never read it. But I suggest its headlines reflect its considerable readership's distrust and contempt for the Establishment. And that I certainly share making clear that the Judgement is probably correct. (I say "probably" because I'm not a lawyer.). The saintly Guardian is little better. Instead of engaging with ideas - rumbustious if necessary - it only pours bile on those who voted out.
ReplyDelete