Report comment

What I find fascinating is that the Brexiteers, who were so keen on reclaiming sovereignty for Parliament, are much less keen now that the HC has ruled that Parliament, rather than HMG, has precisely that. I have even seen that that David Carswell MP is calling for power to remove judges: there always has been one in case of judicial misconduct but now it seems that some people wish to ensure that judges remain truly independent by having an ability to remove them if judges give unpopular decisions.

There used to be a procedure called Acts of Attainder, whereby Parliament passed legislation saying that someone had been guilty of something in the past and imposing a penalty accordingly. The last one passed was in 1798 and it has now been abolished as a procedure, as well as clearly being contrary to Article 7 of the ECHR and the principle nulla poena sine lege, but that should not prevent its revival by the loonies. Given the new found popularity for referenda, the mounting cost of legal aid, and a widespread objection to courts deciding things in accordance with the law, should not the whole system be streamlined by having regular referenda to decide whether people are guilty of conduct past and imposing penalties by popular vote?

The HC decision was clearly logical and not politicial. I have seen a suggestion in the press today that the ECJ may indeed have a say, not on the UK's constitutional requirements, but on whether an article 50 notice can be withdrawn. It was a plank of the Claimants' cases in the recent action that it could not, but I have read an academic argument to the contrary. Plainly it is in the UK's interest to clarify that, because, if revocable, Parliament would have the ability to debate the final terms and accept or reject them, so that Brexit could proceed or not as the case may be. Indeed a referendum on the terms could also then be held.

Is it not more important to get Brexit right rather than do it quickly and badly?