Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Mr Turner,

Surely it is a stock contention of the pro-Europeans that the electorate voted on 23rd June to leave the EU without realizing what was entailed? This is all I said in my previous comment. And on this point (though on no other) I entirely agree with the pro-Europeans. We didn't express an opinion on how Brexit was to be implemented because that wasn’t the question asked. Nor could it realistically ever have been asked. All we voted for was that "Europe" be extracted from our political system, like a bad tooth, as speedily and painlessly as possible. We are not dentists. We leave all that to our public servants.

A lot of Europhiles gravely pretending to be concerned about democracy and the "rule of law" are trying to make out that the High Court has ruled only that parliament must have a say on the “how” of Brexit, not on the “whether”. I don’t know if you are one of those Europhiles or not (your stance is so obscure) but in any event the assertion is patently untrue. The judgment is concerned solely with the question of whether parliament has the right to overrule the referendum result altogether. The judges have held that it does. In other words: parliament decided that the electors should decide whether parliament was to be sovereign or subordinate; the electors thereupon decided that parliament was to be sovereign; and the judges have now decided that parliament can nonetheless choose to be subordinate if it so wishes, regardless of the electors. If that’s not a fair summary of the judgment I’d be glad if someone could show me why not. Maybe I was unjust in likening the eminent judges to Alice in Wonderland, but it beats me how anyone can see this decision as an inspiriting triumph for parliamentary supremacy and the “rule of law”.

Your details

Cancel