The remainers are fighting back, and they have chosen to use the establishment institutions of the courts to try and sabotage the decision to leave the EU. A case was brought before the High Court contesting the government’s right to use the Royal Prerogative to lodge an Article 50 notice without consulting Parliament. The petitioners won their case and the government has appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal decision could raise some important constitutional issues about ultimate sovereignty and where it lies.
If the Supreme Court overturns the High Court decision to involve Parliament in the lodging of the Article 50 notice, all well and good. The Supreme Court would be saying that the citizen holds ultimate sovereignty and has the right to bypass Parliament and instruct the government directly. However, if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court decision and involves Parliament in the Article 50 notice, what the Supreme Court will effectively be saying is that the sovereignty of the citizen is not ultimate and can be overridden by Parliament, which includes the unelected, Europhile House of Lords.
If that happens, the question that needs to be asked is: “where does that leave the status of the ordinary citizen?”, as it would seem that the citizen is then little more than a possession of the State. If a situation like that is found to exist then Parliament needs to take urgent action to restore ultimate sovereignty to the citizen, where it belongs.
It has long been an accepted fact that ultimate sovereignty is supposed to rest with the people, and the people elect representatives and entrust the exercise of their sovereignty to them. In this particular case, the government, by Act of Parliament, gave this particular decision to the people themselves by way of a referendum. They gave it reluctantly, and only because they had painted themselves into a corner with an election manifesto pledge that they couldn’t easily renege on. However, when the people didn’t give the result that the government expected, the establishment started looking for some way to disenfranchise the people and reverse the decision.
The courts seemed to be their best option. The courts are unelected and are responsible to nobody but themselves, so they are ideal for the job, as they are packed with individuals who move in the upper echelons of society and have the same old school ties as politicians, civil servants, and captains of industry. This sort of upper level society is absolutely aghast at the idea of the miserable peasants actually making decisions about their own governance.
People from the establishment don’t see us as British citizens, with hopes and aspirations, and with rights and status in our own country. To them we are mere “population units”, to be moved around Europe like counters on a board game, and herded around by the establishment like livestock. At the moment, it seems as if the unelected “Quislings in wigs” of the courts are trying to open the door to decision making in this matter to the “Quislings in ermine” of the House of Lords. This should be resisted vigorously.
The general public trust the courts about as much as they trust Parliament, which is not saying a great deal. The courts are seen as anything but impartial, as they are just another part of the establishment, who are doing everything in their power to thwart the will of the people and keep us in the EU. The lacklustre performance of the government in this matter also calls into question their commitment to leaving the EU at all, as most of the senior government figures sided with the “remain” camp during the referendum.
This situation may drag on and on, and next March may well see another delay in lodging the Article 50 notice if Parliament is allowed to stick their oar in. It may well be that the Article 50 notice has not been lodged by the time of the 2020 general election, which would be a disaster, as it would give the EU time to bring in EU legislation to prevent us leaving in some way, and we would still be subject to it as an EU member state. It would certainly make the 2020 general election a very interesting one. The only hope would be for the present government to use its slim majority to repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 and call a general election next year. However, the ability and the willingness of this government to do such a thing is seriously in doubt, as is now the willingness of this government to evoke Article 50.
[Ed: readers may be interested to learn that the group “Lawyers for Britain” has been granted permission to intervene in the Supreme Court Hearings. Here is a summary of their submission.]