As the BBC has put it, “Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled … This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own”. The judgment was handed down this morning, and why the Government is appealing to the Supreme Court is mystifying. It is a simple assertion of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
And that’s what all those Brexit campaigners wanted, isn’t it? So all of them would welcome the judgment with open arms. Except they have done nothing of the sort. And the saloon bar propper-uppers in UKIP are at the forefront of the mardy strop reaction.
Take Patrick “Lunchtime” O’Flynn, now - don’t laugh - an MEP, who whined “MPs and peers already voted to give power to decide on Brexit to the UK people in a referendum. Political class skating on very thin ice”. It wasn’t binding. Try reading the T&Cs. His former leader Nigel “Thirsty” Farage was equally unhappy: “I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke”. Bit like Enoch Powell - “they know not what they do”. There was more.
Kipper leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans blustered “How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will? It's a power grab & undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them”. Very Third Reich. Her colleague Douglas “Kamikaze” Carswell was equally intolerant: “Shocking judicial activism- these judges are politicians without accountability”. Judging on matters of law has become “activism” in the retelling.
Also retelling the assertion of Parliamentary Sovereignty was the odious Quentin Letts (let’s not), with “Mrs May should relish this article 50 row and use it to smoke out the anti-democrats of the Law and the Left”. Supremacy of Parliament is now anti-democratic! Andrew Pierce, also at the Mail, offered “Establishment in the form of our out of touch judges vote to try to block Brexit. they can't bear democracy”. Democracy is not democracy! One can only imagine what tomorrow’s Mail will bring.
For the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, it was all too much: “Have switched to watching BBC news channel for more objective coverage of the Article 50 ruling, @faisalislam just unbearably gleeful”. Why so glum? Maybe because Faisal Islam had just told the Fawkes mob “Yes I called it right 3 weeks ago. It's called being a journalist. You should try it”. Journalism. A sore point with The Great Guido.
The inevitable press backlash was touched upon by Paul Mason, who warned “Stand by for every member of the Supreme Court to have their private lives long-lensed by the tabloids”. And in a pragmatic corner of Eurosceptic land, Iain Dale suggested Theresa May be proactive: “1. Court decision clear, not marginal … 2. Appeal pointless … 3. Put Article 50 to a vote next week. Get on with it … 4. i.e. Take the initiative”.
Poor Iain. He would have hated being an MP. He’s far too keen on taking action.
7 comments:
Having a pop at me again!
I'd have thought you wastrels would have understood by now.
My views are the only important ones.
Public interest does not apply to me and my family life.
Just everyone else!
Problem?
So referundums in the UK are a waste of time, money and effort. Might as well asked the parliament before all this referundum nonsense and told Farage and his ilk to fuck off.
Scary in one way, say for example if May had a very healthy lead in Parliament say 150 or more than Labour, the referundum was an IN verdict, but it has to go via parliament, and May decides OUT and uses her majority.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, 1962-82.
In other words, sober up Nigel.
It's strange that Leavers can't take their own advice -accept that they have lost and get over it.
If the result had been stay those who voted leave would have been making their views known too.
Unfortunate that the Beeb felt the need to give the Tufton Street set exposure over this, but kind of worth it to see Chairman Elliott's lackey-in-chief Isaby getting in a near-risible lather over the verdict. Didn't exactly appear calm and gracious in defeat.
Careful with your Lord Denning quotes, Sheffield Mole. He also said, when commenting on why the Birmingham Six should not be allowed to appeal: ‘just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.'
In other words, justice would make the English lose faith in their police, politicians and judiciary. Therefore injustice should be made to prevail. Interesting times, eh?
Post a Comment