Has the UK’s High Court caught the “Activist” bug from the ECJ, whereby it takes political decisions masquerading as legal judgements? The decision to refer Article 50 to parliament looks toxic since this enables MPs and (especially) peers to delay the process.
We hope the Supreme Court disagrees. If not we think the Prime Minister should call a General Election, as soon as possible, with a manifesto commitment to invoke Article 50 and to leave the EU, on the best terms possible, subject to the right to make our own laws and control our own borders (essentially what the Referendum has already instructed Parliament to do).
Of course there is a chance the public will change its mind and elect an anti-Brexit Government, or perhaps a very soft Brexit one in view of the Referendum result. No doubt Theresa May would rather constituency changes had already been implemented thereby increasing her chances of a substantial majority. We don’t think another vote on leaving the EU is justified but a clear mandate (either way) is preferable to a hapless process bedevilled by constitutional challenges and confusion. Perhaps the threat of a General Election would persuade a majority of MPs, fearful of losing their seats at the vote or through de-selection by their constituency parties, to accept the Government’s programme.
A definite mandate to quit the EU would also help neuter the Lords’ efforts to frustrate it. Ideally the next Queen’s Speech would outline how the size and composition of the “Upper House” would be reviewed, likewise the whole issue of how honours are awarded.
We are not qualified to argue with the High Court judges but are persuaded by the legal brains at lawyersforbritain.org. They point out that our courts have repeatedly allowed our “sovereign parliament” to be overruled when that results in “more Europe” but disallows this instance of “less Europe”. Their argument can be found here: