Friday, 4 November 2016

Courting Disaster - what Does Sovereignty of Parliament Mean?

The decision of the High Court that MPs must have another vote before our Prime Minister is allowed to trigger Article 50 is an insult to democracy and an insult to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU.



MPs have already voted on this issue, when they voted last year to hold a Referendum. To hold a Referendum is synonymous with carrying out its result. The public statements of the Prime Minister and all our MPs confirmed over an over again that the Referendum would be binding. Why else did David Cameron resign on the morning after the Referendum? He was defeated and saw no point in carrying on. 
We have had another major Referendum in Britain in recent years, the Scottish Referendum on independence, and the elected leaders of the Scottish Assembly who may have wanted an Out votes respected the result to remain in the Union. Anything else would be a betrayal of democracy.  It would be indecent.
Some gloating Remainers are now saying that to let the High Court interfere with our democracy is respecting the "sovereignty of Parliament". Not at all. The sovereignty of Parliament - which was not, by the way, mentioned on the Referendum voting form - means that our Parliament cannot be overruled and told what to do by any foreign power.  It means that Westminster cannot be compelled to introduce votes for prisoners, or a new type of arrest warrant, or preposterous definitions of "human rights" that trample on the rights of the British people. It means that agreements such as TTIP or CETA should never have been hatched behind closed doors and then launched on us willy-nilly without a vote in our Parliament. 
        The sovereignty of Parliament does not mean that MPs can ignore the decision of the people as expressed in a Referendum that they agreed to call, and that they all discussed, and regarded as binding throughout the campaign and ever since. The leaflet sent out by the Government, at a cost of £9 million, stated plainly that the result of the Referendum would be implemented.
We know that the majority of MPs campaigned to remain in the EU, but I hope that there are only a few like David Lammy, with the indecent arrogance to proclaim that the Referendum result must be ignored or overruled by an elite. I believe that a vote in Parliament now would probably produce a LEAVE result, but I do not think it needs to be held.  The leading judge, Mr Thomas, who sat on this case was the  founder of a lobbying group for European integration! 


Thomas is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration.

So he is the least objective person they could possibly have found to make the decision. The bias is laughable.
Jacob Rees-Mogg says quite correctly that Parliament has already been consulted. It passed the 2015 Referendum Act in full knowledge and understanding that the outcome would be binding. David Cameron at the time said that Article 50 would be triggered immediately after a Leave vote. So MPs have already given their full, unconditional consent to Brexit.

    The over-assertive, bossy Nicola Sturgeon has seized the opportunity to display her arrogance once again. She wants to block the UK government's appeal against this ruling. Sturgeon is just the leader of a minority administration in the Assembly of a small minority of the UK. Scotland has fewer people than Yorkshire, and it is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, yet she struts around acting like Angela Merkel and trying to tell everyone else what to do.
   Mrs May must not underestimate the impact it would have to ignore the Referendum result. The anger and resentment it generated, in combination with another round of planned cuts in government spending, could have disastrous effect. She would be wise to go the other way, and avoid the painful cuts by another method: namely stop sending £350 million per week to the EU.
And she should refuse to pay the lavish pensions of 22,000 fat cat Eurocrats which are costing us billions even while we slash the NHS, and withdraw care for the elderly and support for the disabled. Leave means Leave. Brexit means Brexit.




http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728461/Sturgeon-threatens-stop-appeal-High-Court-Brexit-ruling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/eu-demands-britain-pays-pensions-of-1730-eurocrats-in-wake-of-br/

No comments:

Post a Comment