Supreme Court betrays people’s will by delaying Brexit

The Supreme Court had made its verdict, and it has made it very clear. It has now decided that Brexit should be triggered by parliament, not the government. This means both the Upper and Lower Houses will debate Brexit, a rather trivial prospect since there is nothing to debate. The people already decided, and a rightful Supreme Court would do whatever is necessary to ensure the will of the people is upheld.

But this is a naive ideal. The Supreme Court had betrayed the people in favour of an investment manager and a hairdresser who are so adamant on making sure the people’s will is curbed. This is, unfortunately, the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom in this day and age.

Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said, “By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so”, while reading out the ruling. He also added “constitutional arrangements” of the UK legitimised this ruling that seeks to support a parliamentary vote.

The reasoning behind this decision is that it is unconstitutional for the UK to depart from its own laws. Section II of the 1972 Act “provides that whenever EU institutions make new laws those new laws become part of U.K. law”, as stated by Lord Neuberger. Because this means EU law is a part of UK law, a parliamentary vote is required since Brexit would mean the U.K. is leaving its own laws.

It is predicted that Article 50 will ultimately pass, since most MPs are expected to support the will of the people despite their personal side in the debate. The debate is meant to be over, it happened last year, and it ended in June last year when Brexit won the referendum. But the debate will now be reignited in an attempt to waste the time of the people and the country.

The debate in parliament along with all necessary protocol imposed by the Supreme Court is still expected to happen before the government’s 31 March target.

The court also ruled that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies do not need a say. The court has ruled that the Brexit decision is not a function of these institutions.

Jeremy Corbin has assured that he and his party will not attempt to further take advantage of this situation and delay the triggering of Article 50. This adherence to the people’s will by Labour is commendable. However, Corbin did say that he will try to alter Theresa May’s plans for Britain after it leaves the EU, including challenging her tax cuts for businesses.

Nigel Farage, the face and leader of the Brexit camp, has condemned the Supreme Court for betraying the people in such an openly shameless manner. And rightly so, the people voted to leave and that is what they should get.

The government has argued that the decision to trigger Article 50 should soully be under its control, a notion based on its possession of the Royal Prerogative. Opponents, however, have argued that denying parliament a vote is undemocratic. But what about the people who voted for Brexit? Wouldn’t this decision to subvert the will of the people as manifested in the referendum result also be grossly undemocratic?

The government has assured people that Brexit is not at risk. It stated that the Brexit decision was already decided on by the people of Britain last year, and that it cannot be reversed. Brexit legislation is to be introduced shortly. It seems the only problem is that it may be delayed. All that’s left is for parliament to use its conscience and do the right thing by ensuring the people’s democratic decision is fulfilled.

Site Managed by ManageWP® Australia