Brexit and power to the people

What I find particularly worrying is the fact that three judges gave a verdict against the government as a result of which they've had to go into hiding with police protection.

Has anyone heard the Prime Minister condemning those who are threatening the judges?

Talk about moral laxity.
What is the message she is giving out by this lack of action?

The message is clear. The supreme Court judges must think on if their verdict goes the same way - the government will not stand against those who threaten your life or family.

Nothing about the response to this judicial judgement surprises me. The House of Commons has been ignored and neglected, dismissed and reduced in power as Prime Ministers have assumed an increasingly presidential role. It is crucial for UK democracy that MPs are restored to their proper role. That it should be the Brexit issue is coincidental; it matters that they are involved in every law, legal issue, decision and action.

Of course MPs have to listen to their constituents' concerns and, where they can, help them solve problems and injustice. However, they also have to vote with their conscience about huge issues that involve the whole country. It is time that they were allowed to do these things again.

"Yes, I do know this is a parliamentary democracy. But in 2015 parliament voted by a six-to-one margin to pass this decision directly to the voters, with the proposer of the bill declaring it meant that “the decision about our membership [of the EU] should be taken by the British people, not by parliamentarians in this chamber”."

From the Sunday Times today. Dominic Lawson.

I do like The Times. Yesterday there were two articles sticking up for the judges' decision. Today there are two, equally good, sticking up for the referendum majority vote.

The media and some Brexiters are getting themselves into a real bind with what they argue as British sovereignty and "the will of the people" They seem to think that they are separate and in this case on separate sides of the argument.

So much hyperbole and hatred has been stirred Up since the verdict it is difficult to know where to start. Some of the following has been reported in the Guardian.

Much of the right wing media is owned by those they love to hate "the foreigner", and they clearly will never let facts get on the way of a good onslaught.

Reading all the various reports the biggest protagonists are the Telegraph, the Mail the Express and the Sun.

The Sun seems to blame Cameron because he apparently promised that the referendum verdict would be smoothly enacted by parliament, but the Sun tries to square the circle by arguing that the remainers want to keep Parliament subservient to Brussels whilst arguing that parliament should not have the power to deal with Brexit.

The Express is it seems a tad hysterical, is worrying about the enormous power wielded by the SNP and Lib-Dems. They worry endlessly for the 4 million voters whose UKIP beliefs are "being trampled into the dust"

Then we come to the Mail. Oh dear oh dear. So much hysteria so little accurate fact. One of its main moans is that the referendum was only advisory. It argues that "at no stage were we told that this referendum was only advisory"
Strange that as about 15 days before 23June they ran a piece which said "Lord Astor advices that the referendum is only advisory, it has no legal standing"

They also argue that the Supreme Judges may also allow subliminal prejudice to influence their decision.
Well done Mail, let's all attack the foundation on which our constitution and Nation was built and see where that gets us.

Finally the Telegraph. Well they argue that it should never have been allowed to go to court in the first place, that the judges should have thrown it out, but peculiarly it then goes on to argue that "this political dispute should be settled by parliament not by judges"

Excuse me Telegraph, isn't that the very point of the ruling?

And still nobody can give an answer why the Scottish Referendum is only advisory.

I am interested to know why Sturgeon cannot say Scotland will ignore the majority vote and put the question to the Scottish Parliament/Westminster to override the decision of the people and 'put it in the hands of politicians' because the people should not have been asked in the first place, they were too thick to understand .

I am not particularly bothered with the judges decision , I am very concerned the Lords and Parliament will overturn the referendum vote, do all they can to delay it ' ad infinitum', put one hand up the back for negotiating terms.

This is not without precedent there are too many voices saying this is what they are aiming to do. Nick Clegg et aI. I don't think it will be the Westminster MP's but the House of Lords that will dominate.

This could lead to a constitutional crisis, if we are not in one to a degree already. The fact an unelected group of people can overrule the wish of the people having gone through a democratic vote 'could' be a bigger constitutional issue than Brexit.

Whether you voted Remain or Leave the latter should concern you if you believe in democracy.

We have unelected judges so that they are impartial and not in the pockets of others like we had decades ago.

There is of course the irony that those who have protested at the mere existence of The Lords, for the most part those left of politics, are now looking to The Lords to do their heavy lifting.

That's politics for you.

Devorgrilla

So you honestly believe the House of Lords are impartial.

Good grief.

You said it POGS spot on.Now I don't have to. It seems to me, that the Remainers will do or say anything now to have their way because they didn't like the outcome.

pogs I take your point with regard to the Lords. However we shall see what evolves when and if the time comes.

But I don't agree that the Commons will necessarily stop Brexit. There is no evidence that that is their intention. However what I hope they will do is to give cognisance to the half of the country who wished to remain in the EU.

Brexit should be tempered by this fact, and as a result division in the country could be along the road to healing, provided of course the media keeps its mouth shut - fat chance.

No ww why should there be cognisance of those who voted to stay in? It was a majority decision vote taken not 'oh well, let's do half and half' sort of thing.If the majority of the vote had gone the other way, do you expect them to have taken cognisance of the half wanting to leave?

The media should never have to keep it's mouth shut.

As I said on another post rose -never confuse populism with democracy, that is why both halfs will need to be considered when the decision is made.

Yes the press should definitely stop the vitriol and hate. They should understand the power they have to incite hatred and temper their reporting accordingly. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech but everything to do with a civilised society.

Newspapers should be free to criticise anybody I would have thought, that's why it's called 'the free press'.

Both sides will not have to be considered......what should matter is that the best deal is brokered for the UK, whatever that is.

Brokering the best deal does mean considering both 'sides'.

Newspapers are not free to incite hatred.

If it was really thought that the press was committing an offence by inciting racial or religous hatred then they would be prosecuted......otherwise ARE free to print their criticisms.Having a free press is part of a civilised society.

POGS- Rees-Mog wants to create 1000 new Tory Peers to force Brexit though - so you are right, the House of Lords is certainly NOT impartial talk about 'Power to the People' ...

Who would prosecute them? Inciting hatred doesn't automatically press some button that there will be a prosecution. Having a free truthful press is part of a civilised society.

Rees-Mog I can never take him seriously - I'm not sure people do actually

In a civilised society there are unwritten rules that keep the wheels oiled nicely. The press should remember those rules.

Devorgilla 10.30
We have unelected judges so that they are impartial and not in the pockets of others like we had decades ago.

POGS 10.35

Devorgilla
So you honestly believe the House of Lords are impartial.

Can you confirm, POGS that your post of 10.35 is in response to Devorgilla's post of 10.30 ?

Both sides will not have to be considered.

Unfortunately for you, roses, and all who hold these beliefs, the British Constitution requires that the views of the minority are able to be voiced in Parliament.

I would suggest that people who comment on constitutional matters should take the trouble to find out something about how our British Constitution works.

The judges ruled that the governments argument was contrary to the "fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament"

The Victorian constitutionalist A V Dicey was quoted " The judges know nothing about any will of the people in so far as that will is expressed by an act of Parliament"

In conclusion "the government does not have power under the crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union"

Maizie d. Yes

The House of Lords is not reflective of the number of seats held in Parliament.

For example the Lib Dems have 104 Lords plus a few Crossbench peers yet only 8 MP's in Westminster. The Conservatives have 255 Lords plus a few Cross benchers but 328 MP's.

It is well known the Lords has a percentage in favour of the left of politics and that has been as issue for the Conservative government since 2010.

I do believe that the House of Lords are going to do all it possibly can to delay Article 50, ad infinitum if they can get away with it, most certainly make negotiations as difficult as possible for the government. I am also of the belief that there are many Conservative Lords who will be acting the same way.