No small print in the ballot

Today, the High Court, comprising three judges, has declared that the government cannot invoke Article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU; it must be put to parliament to decide, thus upholding the sovereignty of parliament.

This business about ‘sovereignty of parliament’ is a smokescreen by elitists to prevent Article 50 being invoked.

The sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, announced there would be a referendum on whether or not the UK should leave the EU.

Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold that referendum.

It was acknowledged that Article 50 was the tool to be implemented if the vote was to leave.

The government of the day triggered the referendum.

The referendum took place.

A majority voted to leave.

Nowhere on the ballot paper did I see in small print, or an asterisk offering a ‘serving suggestion’ or ‘your vote will be subject to Parliament agreeing with you’.  The ballot was ‘in’ or ‘out’, as agreed by the sovereign’s Parliament.

Implement Article 50.

Specious objections:

1. Mrs May does not have a mandate. Sorry, but she is the head of the government of the day, the same government that instigated the referendum. (If a PM died, would you have an election for a new mandate? Of course not. We don’t elect presidents [prime ministers], we elect governments.)

2. But parliament needs to discuss the negotiating proposals for leaving the EU. It’s their sovereign right. I don’t hear the EU debating about any proposals on the subject; they’re keeping their cards close to their collective chest. Do we want an own-goal?

3. The majority wasn’t that big. Well, if you use that argument you bury the modern concept of democracy. Even if there’s only a majority of one vote, that has to be sufficient. Or you’re running the vote over and over again – instead of getting on with proper business. Emulate Spain, why don’t you?

4. Perhaps England could be separated from the UK, and Scotland and Northern Ireland (who tended to vote more for ‘in’ could stay in the EU. Yes, I’ve read this crackpot idea, and found it hard to believe. So, next general election, those counties who didn’t vote in the next government could abstain from abiding by any new laws the new government made? Sounds a mite chaotic to me.

5. Next time you don’t like the way the government voted in a law, take it to the High Court. You know best, after all.

Who gets rich out of all this? Hmmm… I rest my case.