Letters: Tuesday, November 8 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Legal wrangle over

EU MUCH has been written and said about the recent legal decision of the High Court with regard to the Prime Minister’s authority to invoke Article 50 which starts the process of the UK leaving the EU.

I am sure the Prime Minister doesn’t need to be reminded of the statement made by her predecessor to the House of Commons on 22 February 2016.

However, it is important to reflect on the emphasis the then Prime Minister placed on what would happen in the event of a leave vote; something I don’t believe he thought would ever happen.

He said “Then there is the legality. I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit.

“And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

Having read Mr Cameron’s statement to the House I am persuaded, as I believe more than 33 million people were likewise persuaded that there were inherent risks in voting to leave the EU.

And 52 per cent of the electorate determined the risks were worth taking, so voted to leave the EU.

Mr Cameron made it clear that the vote was an incredibly important one, he said “Mr Speaker, this is a vital decision for the future of our country. And we should also be clear that it is a final decision.”

Members of Parliament voted by six to one to ratify the Referendum Act, those same members heard Mr Cameron’s statement and accepted its content.

He said: “This is a straight democratic decision – staying in or leaving – and no government can ignore that.

“Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. And for a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic.”

Parliamentarians didn’t fundamentally disagree with the comments or the content of the Bill laid before Parliament and it accordingly received Royal Assent in December 2015.

I hope Mrs May further develops the central theme which underpins this matter.

Parliament agreed that in the matter of our membership of the EU that the decision to leave or stay was far too important to be made by Parliamentarians alone.

There is an absurdity that the Lords somehow consider themselves to be ‘representatives of the people’ when in fact they are unelected placemen of the Government of the day.

As such, their belief that they have a right to determine what is right for the people is grossly exaggerated.

I leave it to others to determine the veracity of the claim by some members that they are better able to understand and appreciate what is in the best interests of the public and nation After all who could fail to be in awe of those who consider it appropriate to elect Keith Vaz to a position on a Commons committee charged with oversight of law and justice.

DES MORGAN Caraway Drive, Swindon

Upholding the law

WHEN travelling internationally, one of a number of things which makes me proud to be a British citizen, is my equality under the law and my confidence in the impartially and incorruptibility of the British Judicial system.

This week’s deplorable tabloid headlines branding British judges ‘enemies of the people’ is to (possibly deliberately) entirely misunderstand our legal system, and serves only to undermine public confidence in the administration of the law by an independent judiciary - and, of course, sell a few more newspapers.

Our legal system is admired the world over for its tradition, its clarity, its fairness and impartiality. If these editors, or their masters, want to live under a system where the government instruct judges how to find, then I could list a raft of places to which they could quickly decamp.

How about Erdogan’s Turkey for example, where police, the same day raided the homes of MPs from a political party he disapproved of and put 10 of their number in prison.

Look out Jeremy and Nicola … and in Teresa’s brave new world, don’t expect judges to be able to come to your aid.

The irony is that the very same tabloid owners and editors would immediately rush to the judiciary if they felt their inherited freedoms or rights were being curtailed in any way.

To print the headlines with pictures of the individuals judges, in the way they might do criminals, is at the same time, both intimidating and disgraceful.

Judges do not respond to non-binding referenda, General Elections, opinion polls, viral social media, straw polls, X factor votes or any other ‘popular’ expression of public opinion, however canvassed, however wide ranging, however sincere.

To quote the eminent Victorian constitutional teacher AV Dicey: “Judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an act of Parliament.”

Parliament gave us rights under EU-made law that we have all “enjoyed or not”, for the last 50 years. Only a new Act of Parliament can now take those away. This is the basis of our constitution and Parliamentary democracy remains its cornerstone.

Despite the slurs, the judgement had nothing at all to do with subverting the will of the people, in fact exactly the opposite.

The Government cannot and should not change the law by prerogative power – forget Brexit – in any circumstances.

Rightly only Parliament and not government can decide when the rights of British citizens are to be conferred or removed.

This will now go to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law in this matter.

When Teresa May tells Jean-Claude Junker this court will ‘reconsider the matter’ it is hard to see why she would say this as the legal position seems entirely clear.

In the process of ‘getting our country back’ is it now to become a country in which the executive puts pressure on the judiciary to force the outcome it seeks? I sincerely hope not.

JOHN STOOKE Haydon End, Swindon

Acting beyond power?

THE High Court has ruled that Article 50 cannot be invoked without a vote in Parliament.

Parliament includes both the House Of Commons and the House Of Lords. The House Of Lords is particularly keen that we should stay in the EU. The House Of Lords would probably not reject Article 50 but it has substantial powers to delay legislation about subjects of which it does not approve.

It was Theresa May’s plan to leave the EU in 2019. If this is delayed to any great extent then we might not leave until after the General Election which is planned for 2020.

If there were a change of Government at the next General Election with a different view of Brexit then it is quite possible that Britain might never leave the EU at all.

The courts are there to implement laws passed by Parliament. The courts are not there to tell the Prime Minister how the business in Parliament should be conducted.

Some senior lawyers believe that the High Court might have acted Ultra Vires in this case. In other words that the High Court has acted beyond its powers by telling the Prime Minister how to run the business of government.

TERRY HAYWARD Beaufort Green, Swindon

Ensuring the best deal

I WAS surprised that Justin Tomlinson and Robert Buckland are so keen to deny the public service responsibilities they constantly tell us that they are so proud to undertake (MPs condemn High Court’s Brexit ruling, November 5) by not wishing to debate the triggering of Article 50 in Parliament.

The High Court ruling is simply that Parliament is sovereign, an uncontroversial assertion to anyone who believes in our democratic processes.

Leaving the EU is a monumentally complex business and it is essential that there is a clear strategy to ensure the best deal for Britain.

If Mr Buckland and Mr Tomlinson are so confident that the Government has a solid plan to achieve the best outcome for its citizens, what is the problem with having that plan approved by the MPs elected by those citizens to represent them?

This does not deny or contradict the referendum result but does ensure that the Government is held to account.

NEIL MERCER Maidstone Road, Swindon

Council must act

AS WE see another two shops leaving the town centre - Soletrader and Cargo - it is time for the council to act before the town becomes a laughing stock.

There must be a viability study into the amount of empty units and the lack of demand.

Condensing the town centre and turning unused units into much needed housing must be explored. Fleet Street is an ideal opportunity for this.

The internet is devastating high streets across the land and its convenience cannot be understated. The council, however, must take their share of blame. The Outlet Village and the numerous retail parks in such a small town were obviously going to decimate town centre shopping, maybe the need for town centre shopping should be questioned in its entirety?

KELLY COLLINS Lyndhurst Crescent, Swindon