A momentous constitutional decision was taken by the High Court of England and Wales on Thursday morning. A prime minister’s absolute power to do what he or she likes, when he or she likes, regardless of laws and treaties, was struck down. British Prime Minister Theresa May cannot tear up Britons’ rights to be European Union (EU) citizens without the authority of parliament. Those rights were bestowed by parliamentary votes in a series of treaties. She can’t high-handedly abandon them and trigger Britain’s exit from the EU without parliament’s agreement. Judges, wisely, do not generally want to usurp the power of elected governments to govern. Laws made by judges are a poor substitute for those made by elected MPs in parliament. But this is a matter of the profoundest constitutional importance, with deep implications and controversial — whichever way they had decided.
They rightly pronounced that the British parliament is sovereign — which is what the Brexiters claimed Britons were voting on — until it no longer suited them. What now? The government will appeal to the Supreme Court next month, though some suggest May should dash to the Commons immediately for a quick vote, before an as-yet hazy coalition of cross-party Remainers has time to organise and solidify. If the appeal fails, will MPs galvanise? Leaving it to the unelected Lords is no answer.
There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests, their own interests and the views of their constituents. That may risk being voted out, but they may earn more respect by standing up for the national interest as best they can determine: That’s what representative democracy is for. In times of war or national crisis, defending the country from grave error, at whatever personal cost, is their duty. Brexit is the greatest threat to Britain’s national well-being since the Second World War, and this will test the mettle not just of individual MPs, but of the nature and purpose of a representative democratic system. How difficult and brave that is: Labour MPs are painfully mindful that 70 per cent of their seats voted in favour of Brexit .
Raucous anger against any parliamentary attempt to let the country pause for thought is bellowed out daily by the Tory press, denouncing all 48 per cent of Remain voters as an anti-democratic remoaning metropolitan elite. Stifling all experts just for being experts, intimidating even the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, is a bullying demagoguery that paralyses many who should speak out. A non-binding referendum, voted on amid a thicket of utterly cynical lies and promises, cannot be a tombstone block to the judgement of MPs on this vital matter of national interest. It’s not anti-democratic to try to stop what so many other countries see as an incomprehensible act of economic suicide.
Why does the government fight so hard against what would almost certainly be a parliament that folded instantly on an Article 50 vote? Because during such a debate, they would have to bring forward some kind of a plan for how they will negotiate Brexit.
No such plan exists, because the split Cabinet could not possibly agree even on a vague outline to satisfy both Liam Fox, Britain’s Secretary of State for International Trade, and Damian Green, the Pensions Secretary. Even a wishlist of impossibilities would be impossible, with the demented Conservative politician John Redwood and the Daily Express faction calling daily for an immediate crashing out, with no deals and no treaties. Best news of the day on Thursday came from a BBC interview with Lord Kerr, former head of the foreign office and ambassador to the United States and the EU. It was he who had drafted Article 50 and he said: “It is not irrevocable. You can change your mind while the process is going on.” The pound soared following Thursday’s High Court news because markets are idiotic, shaped by punters second-guessing one another’s idiocy. This doesn’t suggest, alas, that Brexit is much closer to being reconsidered. Reality will take the pound back down, predicted to sink further with each step towards the exit gate.
Next year’s prices will rise, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research reckons, by 4 per cent, hitting those who are “just managing” even harder. Every day another bad effect is revealed before anything has even happened. Currently, there is an acute labour shortage in the food processing industries, as east Europeans are reluctant to come to Britain. The shrinking pound decreases the value of their pay and they hear awful stories of racist attacks and abuse. Without actually leaving, Britain is already keeping EU immigrants away. The damage is beginning already.
The latest regreters are the £4 billion (Dh18.37 billion) curry house operators, who voted Out. They were lied to outright, as , Priti Patel, Britain’s Secretary of State for International Development, and others told them that fewer EU migrants would open the door to the chefs they desperately need and promised a points-based system to let chefs in. This has now been reneged on. There will be massive closures, they say. How naive could they be?
A public stirred by Mail and Sun anti-migrant horror stories were made even more fearful of Muslim refugees pouring than of Poles: Of course, the government now says the screw is tightening and there will be no more Asian visas. Others too will find how badly they were lied to.
There is time for people to change their mind, and polls suggest opinion is on the move. The vote was narrow, but MPs can’t wait for public opinion to shift by itself. They have a role to play — as leaders not as followers. Thursday’s judgement tells them exactly that.
Once in a while, by mistake, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tells a truth: “Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a titanic success of it”, he said last Wednesday at the Spectator awards. Yes, Britain is on the Titanic and he’s the captain.
Can parliament help save Britain from him and the damage he has done before it sinks?
— Guardian News & Media Ltd
Polly Toynbee is a columnist for the Guardian. She was formerly BBC social affairs editor, columnist and associate editor of the Independent, co-editor of the Washington Monthly and a reporter and feature writer for the Observer.
