Increasing numbers of people have been warming to the notion that Brexit may not have to mean Brexit after all. This was probably inevitable given that those who voted for it did so for a very wide range of reasons, and it is abundantly clear that the cabinet is about as unclear as the rest of us. The announcement that the UK government has lost its high court case about article 50 (Report, 3 November, theguardian.com) means that, subject to appeal, it will have to be debated in parliament. This presents a golden opportunity for MPs to throw a spanner in the works by refusing to vote for article 50 to be triggered without knowing precisely, or at least, generally, what Brexit will actually look like. When we know the awful truth I predict a stampede towards Brexit exit.
Any arguments about this thwarting the will of the people needs to be shown up for the nonsense it is. It would not be thwarting the will of the 48% who voted against and, I suspect, a high proportion of those who voted to leave didn’t vote for hard Brexit, having believed some of the lies of leading Brexiters. Perhaps we can still pull back from the brink if parliament is prepared to face the fury of Ukip and the Tory right, two groups that are increasingly difficult to tell apart.
Alan Healey
Bishops Castle, Shropshire
• The high court decision is not about whether we stay in or leave the EU, it is about common sense. I have always been a reluctant remainer – not against Brexit as such, I simply believe that the decision was reached in a fatally flawed way, partly because the leave campaign never had to explain exactly what leave would mean. People were being asked to vote for a blind option.
We can’t turn back time and redo the referendum, but at least if there is a full debate in parliament we will get a proper discussion on the reasons for leaving and the options for the future. It is highly likely that parliament will vote to leave, but at least the decision will have been reached in something close to a proper process. This could make a big difference in healing the fractured and politically intolerant mood that has emerged in the country since the vote.
Ken Abbott
Portishead, Somerset
• Claims that the high court ruling is an attempt to scupper Brexit altogether are ridiculous. In addition to committing the cardinal sin of defining a word using the word itself (“Brexit means Brexit”), the government has also made no sense when arguing against parliamentary ratification of article 50.
Theresa May has stated, rather patronisingly, that any negotiator knows you should not show your hand to those on the other side of the table before negotiations have even begun. She is correct.
However, it is not implicit that anyone but parliament is able to see our negotiating hand. Parliament is able to sit in private, meaning only MPs may be present and no media coverage may take place. This was done in 2001 when MPs debated the anti-terrorism, crime and security bill.
Parliamentary involvement in Brexit will not reverse the referendum result, it will simply scrutinise the terms of withdrawal and it can be achieved without showing our hand to the EU.
Gabriel Osborne
Bristol
• “Brexit means Brexit” is a meaningless and unhelpful phrase and today’s high court judgment reminds us of this. Two words, one repeated, designed to make us forget the constitutional framework and legal process. Brexit (a consultative referendum) means (voted for by a narrow majority) Brexit (that we should leave the EU without further parliamentary scrutiny or consideration of the implications or constitutional foundations of the vote).
Our constitution, despite being unwritten, is based in law. Parliament (not the government) decided to ask the public their opinion and parliament should decide what to do with this. The House of Lords must be given the chance to do its job too – if it exists at all surely it is for moments like this, to intervene and apply perspective in a situation when the government of the day is trying to do something deeply unconstitutional. And to ensure that the proper time and consideration is given to a decision with such significant consequences.
The result of the referendum is causing divisions not just because of how deeply many people feel about the issues or that the result feels inconclusive, but because the referendum itself was not put in a robust constitutional framework, and as a result its consequences are open to debate.
Kevin Olding
London
• Liam Fox and Dominic Raab don’t seem to understand the high court’s ruling. The nub of the matter is that the executive cannot by royal prerogative alter the rights that British citizens currently enjoy as members of the EU. The most important of these is the right to live and work freely in 28 European countries. If we leave the EU, Poles and Romanians will have that figure reduced from 28 to 27; British citizens meanwhile will have it reduced from 28 to 1.
Charles Turner
Associate professor of sociology, University of Warwick
• What a lovely irony! Having spent months arguing for the return of British sovereignty, the Brexiters don’t seem to like it much.
Roy Boffy
Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham
• Whether you supported leave or remain, the decision of an unelected judge to prevent the prime minister from triggering article 50 is disgusting. Rarely has there been a clearer example of the establishment frustrating democracy and disrespecting the will (for good or ill) of the majority of the people.
Tim Raymond
Seabrook, Kent
• If the government fails to overturn the decision to allow parliament a vote on article 50 in the supreme court, then they could always appeal to the European court…
Steve Flatley
York
• On 3 November 1774, Edmund Burke spoke as follows to the electors of Bristol:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Martin Thom
Cambridge
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
