Gina Miller has courageously initiated and secured a momentous ruling (PM misled the Queen, the people and parliament, 25 September) at great risk to her person and her purse. But why was this action by a private individual the only means of securing “the absolute supremacy of parliament over the government or executive”?
It is all very well clearly establishing the judiciary’s role, but there seems to be a missing part of the process, and that is in the initiation of legal action. Could parliament have triggered legal action against the executive itself? If not, why not? After this judgment, can they do so in the future?
We are all very grateful to Gina Miller, but at the same time we should be asking ourselves why our constitution leaves it to the chance that a private individual will take on such a huge risk.
Virginia Strauss
West Moors, Dorset
• Our democracy is not served when it is subservient to the decisions of unaccountable judges. Now that the supreme court has stepped so decisively into the political realm, it must expect to come under democratic scrutiny.
The political views of its members must be revealed, and henceforth candidates for our highest court must be subject to intensive scrutiny by a cross-party committee of parliament. Those who have liked the short-term gain of the supreme court’s judgment might well live to regret its long-term consequences.
Francis Bown
London
• Your reference (Editorial, 25 September) to the 1611 opinion of Sir Edward Coke that government “hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows”, along with King James I’s view that this was tantamount to treason, brought back to me a similar sentiment in The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, volume VI, 1608-1613. Bacon was a North Norfolk puritan squire, an MP and an implacable opponent of the machinations of courtiers and their ilk.
In a private memorandum of 1610 on parliamentary business, he mused on whether “it be fit, to make it preamunire or treason for anie person to maintayne or hold opynion, that the parliament may not bind both king & subject even in matter of prerogative”.
I don’t think he ever articulated that view in the House of Commons, but it was certainly an interesting thought and quite consistent with Coke. It remains as relevant today as it was then. It would do Boris Johnson good to forget his classical training and read a bit more history and law, before he digs himself into yet more holes. Your editorial also correctly states that all prerogative powers should now come under parliament’s supervision, and the sooner the better.
Dr G Alan Metters
Norwich
• The supreme court has made its historic ruling. Parliamentary democracy is reaffirmed by the highest court in the land that parliament has control under the British constitution.
The prime minister and his acolytes would do well to note the words of Dr Thomas Fuller in 1733: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.” If he tries it on again let us hope that Buckingham Palace sends a note of displeasure and declines to accept his advice.
Paul Faupel
Somersham, Cambridgeshire
• As Jeremy Corbyn seems reluctant to table a no-confidence motion in the prime minister, could I now suggest that MPs follow the example of their predecessors in the Rump House of Commons of 1649. Then, King Charles I was accused of treason for using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of the country, although I would hope that MPs spare the prime minister from a similar ultimate fate.
Gary Rawlinson
Burbage, Wiltshire
• Rafael Behr (Journal, 25 September) is frighteningly correct in his assessment that this will not be a setback to hardline Brexiteers. Those ordinary working people who have been encouraged to blame the EU for their legitimate grievances will be whipped up by the popular press to see Boris as a Robin Hood figure saving them from the out-of-touch MPs and elite judiciary.
If he gets a last-minute deal he will be a hero. If he fails he will be a martyr. There will be a lot of angry people out there and Johnson will bounce back with a majority.
Jane Ghosh
Bristol
• Any chance of the Guardian publishing a front-page picture of the supreme court judges, headlined “Friends of the people”?
Alan Pearson
Durham
• When he claimed that Hillary Clinton had broken the law, Donald Trump said “lock her up”. When Boris Johnson broke the law, the president said: “I know him well, he’s not going anywhere.” Spot the difference!
Paresh Motla
Thame, Oxfordshire
• There have been several references to Lady Hale’s striking spider brooch (Brooching the subject, 25 September) and, as ever, John Crace (Sketch, 25 September) was brilliantly amusing in suggesting its use. I’ve yet to see a reference to The Who’s Boris the Spider (1966). The chorus of “Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly” fits the prime minister’s antics, and we can but hope that Johnson, like this Boris, is only “hanging by a little thread”.
Dr Karen Postle
Titchfield, Hampshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
