Report comment

I don't think members of parliament "bottled" the decision, David: they simply agreed that it was not one which they should or (given parliament's institutionalized Pro-Europeanism) could take themselves. They therefore remitted the question to the people, where it properly belongs. They “recused” themselves, if you like. In a country with a written constitution maybe the matter would have been dealt with by a convention. With us, a referendum was the only way possible. It was of its very nature binding, since once the people had cast their vote there was literally nothing more for parliament to do. To suggest that MPs should have the “final say” is, in American imagery, like asking for your chewing gum back. Some people on this website argue that the referendum never approved the details of the exit deal and speak as if they think the high court judgment is somehow concerned with that issue. It isn’t, of course. It's concerned solely with the question of whether Brexit can be triggered at all without further parliamentary consent. In ruling that it can’t the court effectively thrusts back upon parliament a decision which parliament has already disclaimed. It seems to me one of those judgments which, like Berkeley’s philosophy or some of the conversations in Through the Looking Glass, may be unimpugnable in strict logic, yet nonetheless are totally absurd.