Brexit means, er, obeying the law

Back in June I helped crowdfund a people's challenge to the Prime Minister's assertion that she could trigger the Article 50 notification, thus triggering the beginning of Britain's exit from the EU.

Anyway, there was a hearing last month, and yesterday, Thursday, all gathered back in the high court to hear the result. I followed the proceedings on Twitter, which is the modern way of doing it, and makes it feel that I was there.

The outcome was that the Court sided with the claimants, and that the Government would have to either pass a law or annul the 1972 European Communities Act. Just like what was predicted. Not only that, the judgement was so damning that a successful appeal is very unlikely, although the Government said it would appeal, at least for now.

What does it mean?

What it means is that the Government is going to have to present to both Houses its plan, analysis and progress in exiting the EU. IN passing an enabling bill, Parliament might insist additional clauses are inserted, thus softening the effects on the ordinary men and women in the country, and not just have one that benefits Japanese Car manufacturers and City businessmen.

In shot the ruling meant that the Government was planning was against the law of the land; no power grab by the Judiciary, nothing about denying People their say, just ensuring the Government follow the rule of law, just like they should. In this case, that only Parliament can give citizens rights, and only it can then take them away.

Needless to say the Brexiteers and the Third Estate did not take it well.

At all.

Looking at the front pages of the Mail and Express and even the Telegraph one would have thought this was the start of a revolution, and theu were inciting people to revolt. Nothing about what the result really mean, Law and scrutiny. Using this rhetoric so soon after Jo Cox was assassinated for being kind to immigrants is reckless, and also untruthful, pushing their owner's agenda rather than telling the truth. I am sickened that these three so called newspapers have behaved like this today, and in the case of the Mail and Express, over the past 18 months.

This is truly a post-truth world, where a serial sex-attacker is given little scrutiny, but his opponent for office who may have used the wrong e mail server is subjected to intense investigation. Which is worse: the racist, misogynist, sexist billionaire or someone who used the wrong e mail server?

So, rather than celebrate the protection of Law and the British Constitution, the three judges are called "Enemies of the People" (The Hate Mail) and the once paper of record, The Telegraph had the headline "The Judges versus the People". How irresponsible and untrue.

The whole basis of the arguments for leaving, or one of the main pillars of it was Parliament reclaiming powers. When it does, they attack the Law and Judiciary. In other words, only the Brexiteers can decide what the truth is, what people are told, and when Parliament can and cannot decide. Thankfully, we the people have The Law. And reality on our side. And idiots in power who did not understand what they are trying to do, or even how to go about it. If they can make such basic mistakes about domestic law, can we really trust them to conduct complex, lengthy trade negotiations? Hardly.