Now the members of the demagogic right are demonstrating that they are not only a threat to our economic wellbeing but our constitutional settlement (Scotland weighs up whether to join in article 50 legal fight, 4 November). When Nigel Farage threatens those parliamentarians who delay or block Brexit with public anger (which he will do his best to provoke), he is denying parliament the right to hold the executive to account. He has no understanding of the role of the MP as the representative of the people and not its delegate (as defined by Edmund Burke) which until now was regarded as the correct understanding of the role of the MP. Britain is a representative or parliamentary democracy, not one ruled by plebiscite which is more characteristic of authoritarian states, such as Hitler’s Third Reich.
When Ukip’s Suzanne Evans demands the sacking of the judges, she is undermining the independence of the judiciary, yet another of the bulwarks intended to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by governments. Politicians such as these when they speak of the will of the people are using it as a means of removing from the constitution all those elements that they don’t like, in particular those that protect the rights of minorities, in this case the 48% who voted remain. The Brexit debate is no longer just a debate on EU membership but a fight to retain those elements of the British constitution that make it a liberal democracy.
Derrick Joad
Leeds
• The Burkean philosophy quoted by your correspondent (Letters 3 November) is the root of arrogance and self-righteousness of some members of parliament. Burke’s flowery language can be reduced to ignoring your constituents’ wishes if they do not accord with the representative’s enlightened conscience entrusted by providence. Messianic zeal should have no place in a secular society.
Steve Simmons
Camberley, Surrey
• The death threats made to Gina Miller are both scandalous and extremely worrying coming so soon after the tragic death of Jo Cox. Such scurrilous comments, bordering on xenophobia, should be refuted by our free press and not encouraged as we have seen from the rightwing press, describing the high court judges who ruled in the article 50 case as “the enemies of the people”. Upholding the rule of law is at the cornerstone of our democracy and the judges involved have done just that. The true “enemies of the people” are those who rail so provocatively against them.
George Longstaff
Bidford-on-Avon
• The argument about whether parliament or the prime minister should trigger article 50 clouds another issue: that article 50 is impossible to use. Under article 50, the other 27 member states can present an ultimatum, since the UK’s membership will automatically cease after two years. Worse, even if a compromise is reached, it has to be approved by the European parliament. If MEPs reject the agreement, the UK will still have to leave. Thus, the 27 cannot credibly commit. The setup imposed by article 50 makes negotiation impossible. Invoking article 50 is close to unconditional surrender before negotiations have begun.
Hopefully, parliament will have sense enough to see the futility of negotiating without any leverage and rule out the use of article 50. And hopefully, EU leaders and leaders of other member states will realise that their commitment not to negotiate before article 50 is invoked is not credible. A deal has to be struck, and it is pointless to demand that the UK surrenders all weapons before the fight has even begun.
Brexit can mean anything. Just as the British crown has all sorts of arrangements with its various affiliated nations – the constituent nations of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, crown dependencies, etc – so can the EU have a variety of arrangements with the UK, possibly with special provisions for Scotland. This needs to be achieved by a treaty change or by some other means, instead of through the unusable article 50.
Mikael Sandström
Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
• Steve Flatley (Letters, 3 November) suggests, perhaps tongue in cheek, that the government could appeal to the European court if they lose their article 50 case in the supreme court. I can’t see that it’s been pointed out yet that the supreme court must refer the case. The reasoning of the high court in deciding that the crown prerogative cannot be used proceeded from the initial assumption, agreed by the parties to the case as “common ground”, that notice of withdrawal under article 50 cannot be revoked. This is a matter of interpretation of article 50, and as the final court of appeal, the supreme court will be obliged to refer the case to the European court of justice under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
Peter Roderick
Barrister and senior research fellow, Queen Mary, University of London
• What a shambles. Cameron takes a bill to parliament to have a referendum he expects to vote remain to see off Ukip. The entire scrutiny process of the passage of the bill fails to ask whether this is our MPs’ last say in the matter. So now our learned friends are making a pretty penny at our expense sorting out what I thought we paid our MPs to do. The only good thing is Nigel Farage being so cross that a British court has made a decision.
John Beer
Farnham, Surrey
• The day after Sir John Chilcot, before a parliamentary committee, criticised Tony Blair because on several occasions between 2002 and 2007 “things were decided without reference to cabinet”, the high court rules that government does not have the power it claimed to trigger article 50 without consulting parliament. Prime ministers should not have to be told these things.
Adrian Betham
London
• The government should accept that parliament must have the right to debate and vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations once these have been conducted. Conversely parliament should accept that the government is obliged to trigger those negotiations and that in doing so it is taking its instructions from the people.
Roderick McCallum
Annan, Dumfriesshire
• The talk is all of early elections. What happened to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act? Is it to be scrapped at the first sign of inconvenience to the party in power?
Bernard Besserglik
Pantin, France
• I am a pro-European. My issue with the court judgment is thus more one of efficiency than principle. International negotiations are complex and thus can only be a crown prerogative. On that same principle the deployment of British forces can only be a crown prerogative as parliamentary involvement can only forewarn those on the other side, like Isis terrorists.
John Barstow
Pulborough West Sussex
• No, IDS. The court did not tell parliament how to do its job. It told parliament to do its job.
John Lambert
Hope Valley, Derbyshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
.jpg?w=600)
