Kentish Gazette Canterbury & District
Judges must not be allowed to halt Brexit, warns MP
“Judicial activism” is interfering with the government’s proposal to leave the European Union by triggering Article 50, Canterbury’s MP claims.
Conservative Julian Brazier told Parliament that the judiciary is threatening “to break frightening new ground” should it attempt to thwart the June 23 referendum result.
Mr Brazier, who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU, addressed Brexit minister David Davis after the High Court ruled the government could not invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without seeking approval from Parliament.
He asked: “Does the Secretary of State agree that while the independence of the judiciary is indeed a crucial pillar of our independent constitution, it is only one of a number of them?
“Does he also agree that for the judiciary to interfere between Parliament and the Executive would break frightening new ground?”
Mr Davis replied: “Well, no. As I have said, we are taking this case to the Supreme Court for a reason. We are a government who operate under the law. My hon. Friend has a point in that there has been a degree of judicial activism in modern times, but I do not think that this case is susceptible to that analysis.”
Afterwards, Mr Brazier said the judiciary ought to respect its place in the constitution.
“Although David felt bound to defend the judges, I am glad that he recognised that judicial activism is an issue,” he said.
“Parliament is a representation of the people, so why do we need to ask Parliament to trigger Article 50 if the Prime Minister has been given the instruction from the British people themselves?”
In the referendum campaign in the Canterbury district Mr Brazier took part in a debate with remain campaigner and former city councillor James Flanagan.
Mr Flanagan, who will contest the 2020 general election for the Lib Dems, insists Mr Brazier is wrong to blame judicial activism.
He said: “The decision of the High Court did not stop Brexit. Nor did it say anything about negotiations with the EU. Nor did it overturn the referendum result.
“Instead, the judges did what we would expect them to do.
“They looked at the law, considered what it says, and came to a conclusion – that, constitutionally, Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 is triggered.
“Of course, if government is unhappy with the decision it has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s a bit rich of Julian to call for greater Parliamentary sovereignty during the referendum, only to turn it down when offered by British judges.”
What do you think? Email kentishgazette@thekmgroup.co.uk or write to Gazette House, Estuary View Business Park, Whitstable, CT5 3SE.