'Will of the people'

Brexit alert!

In the recent Mail on Sunday, which is a pro-EU, Remain periodical, Lord Falconer wrote an article headlined ‘Off with her Head!’ I doubt if the former Lord Chancellor actually wrote the headline; a sub-editor probably thought it was a good one in light of the allusion in the text to Charles I losing his head.

This Labour peer who, alongside Tony Blair, took Britain into an illegal war in Iraq supports the recent High Court ruling against the Government regarding Article 50. You couldn’t make it up.

He states that ‘the executive – in this case the Government led by Theresa May – cannot take away the rights of the people simply by issuing an executive decree.’

Clearly, it is the government led by Theresa May that is actually fulfilling the rights of the people by opting to trigger Article 50. The rights of the people, Lord Falconer; your phrase.

The elephant in the room is that the Remain lobby is ever-hopeful that taking the issue to Parliament will delay implementation of Brexit or even ultimately confound the will of the people. Smoke and mirrors, it's called.

The referendum asked the people to vote, and they did so. That is defined as the will of the people. Argue all you like, but that’s the basic fact.

As an aside, what I find fascinating is where newspapers stand on this issue; they’re all the same. Those pro-EU feature letters from readers confirming that stance (notably judges and lawyers in The London Times, for example), as if no reader of their august periodical holds alternative views. The same goes for the pro-Leave papers too. Even-handed? No, of course not. It just confirms you cannot believe everything you read in the press, no matter what political complexion they wear on their sleeve (to mix metaphors).

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.