BREXIT

The government is to appeal against the High Court’s ruling that Article 50 cannot be invoked without Parliament’s support, so that means the case will now be heard in the Supreme Court. The Court comprises 11 senior judges.

Intro: Increasingly, it is not so much Brexit that divides the country as the bitter struggle to prevent it

ON Monday, 5 December, 2016, one of the most important questions of British constitutional history will be examined.

Eleven judges of the Supreme Court will hear the Government appeal against a High Court decision that 17.4 million votes in the EU referendum had no force in law. The High Court ruled that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 can be triggered and negotiations with the EU begin; the Government believes that the referendum rendered that unnecessary. The Supreme Court will begin four days of hearings and a judgment is expected in January.

The 11 Supreme Court judges are faced with a highly political decision. With no written constitution to guide them, this is not a mere question of law, to be solved like a mathematical equation, with a definite correct or incorrect answer. Yet, this was precisely the spirit in which the High Court tried to approach the case, citing centuries-old precedents and ignoring the fact that the June referendum was an unprecedented historic act.

The free press should make no apology for shining a light on the Supreme Court. It is their job to scrutinise the powerful, and most voters have become aware just how powerful these 11 judges really are. With so little to help them in the law books, the clear risk is that the judges may be influenced by their personal opinions, no matter how assiduously they try to set them aside.

It is not a question of attacking the integrity and intelligence of our judges. But, on political matters, it is no more possible for judges than for anyone else to be perfectly neutral, uninfluenced by their own views or those of the people with whom they share their lives.

With only a simple majority needed for a ruling, it will be disturbing for Brexiteers to note that no fewer than five Supreme Court judges have publicly expressed their views which appear to be sympathetic to the EU, while six have close links with people who have publicly attacked the Leave campaign.

This matter should have been dismissed by the High Court. The last government held an in/out referendum on membership of the EU with the explicit promise that the result would be binding. While it is true that Britain is a representative (as opposed to direct) democracy, the EU vote was a rare exception to our political norms, an exception in which the people were asked to instruct the government what to do. Remainers cannot be motivated by concern for parliamentary sovereignty, because, if they were, they would have opposed the transfer of its powers to Europe since the Seventies. Militants see Parliament as an impediment to Brexit, a way of talking it out or watering it down. The application that has led to the current impasse was based on disgruntled mischief.

It is no fault of the Supreme Court justices that they find themselves in such a position of responsibility. They are only doing their job. And their job is a critical part of our constitution – testing laws and ensuring government actions adhere to them. However, there is no escaping the political nature of this case. The judges are being asked to rule on whether the Brexit-backing voters or Remain-backing MPs should have greater authority.

On numerous issues, the courts have defied Parliament and ministers; amending the ‘bedroom tax’, for example, or by outlawing extended solitary confinement for jihadists on grounds of human rights law. In such instances, they have become judicial activists. Which is all very well, but they cannot then complain when their decisions are questioned and their backgrounds and views analysed publicly.

The Government’s case is a good one and the Supreme Court may well agree. We should hope that the judges will remember the legitimacy of the referendum and its verdict, and not as the Government’s senior legal officer, Attorney General Jeremy Wright, has said that the vote be relegated ‘almost to a footnote’ as the Remain camp would hope for.

Increasingly, it is not so much Brexit that divides the country as the bitter struggle to prevent it. Most Remainers have probably accepted defeat and want to get on with their lives. Businesses need to know what is going to happen next. The world is waiting for EU negotiations to begin. It is in the national, even global, interest to proceed.

If the Supreme Court disagrees and says that Parliament must become involved, so be it. In that instance, it seems likely that Theresa May will smooth a Bill through Parliament to trigger Article 50 and limit any unnecessary delay. Of course, such developments would then attract dissenters who would attempt to dilute and frustrate any bill proceeding.

When governments ask the people what to do, they must follow their instructions. They are duty bound to follow through the mandate that has been raised. That’s the nature of how a democratic society operates.