Report comment

I voted Remain, but my sympathies remain with Leave.

I don't think the judgment is beyond challenge, though the integrity of the court that made it is (shame on the Mail and Telegraph). In determining the relative vires of the prerogative and of statute, the courts consider that statute is made by elected representatives, and in most cases grant it supremacy on that ground.

By the same principle, the court should at least have explored the fact that the proposed use of the RP in this case was authorised by a popular vote. This seems a strong ground for distinguishing it from other uses of the RP considered by the courts in the past, and also for holding that the usual justification for restraining the exercise of the RP (its undemocratic nature) was not present in this case.

The response to this challenge is to say, as the court did albeit in passing, that the referendum was merely advisory and therefore carried no force. This, for me, is where the court overreached – millions of voters cast their ballots on the legitimate understanding that the vote carried force. As a result of the vote, a PM resigned, and the UK was denied a place at the Bratislava summit – within the reality of democratic practice, the vote carried force. This was a matter of high democratic politics, and as such was beyond the competence of the court.

Rule of law is not ultimately served by relying on the wording of the 2015 Referendum Act. The effect is that people will think the law to be a ass, irreconcilable with practical democratic reality, and unworthy of consent.