The Supreme Court must remember the people have spoken
The free press should make no apology for shining a light on the Supreme Court. It is our job to scrutinise the powerful, and voters are suddenly aware of just how powerful these 11 judges really are. This week they will hear the Government’s appeal against the High Court’s decision on Brexit. The High Court ruled that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 can be triggered and negotiations with the EU begin; the Government believes that the referendum rendered that unnecessary. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court begins four days of hearings. A judgment is expected in January.
In our opinion, this matter should have been dismissed by the High Court. The last government held an in/out referendum on membership of the EU with the explicit promise that the result would be binding. Yes, Britain is a representative, rather than direct, democracy. But the EU vote was a rare exception to our political norms, an exception in which the people were asked to instruct the government what to do. Remainers who want Parliament to “have its say” are, in many cases, not motivated by concern for parliamentary sovereignty – if they were, they would have opposed the transfer of its powers to Europe since the Seventies. No, the militants see Parliament as an impediment to Brexit, a way of talking it out or watering it down. The application that led to this court case was pure mischief.
It is no fault of the Supreme Court justices that they find themselves in such a position of responsibility. They are only doing their job. And their job is a critical part of our constitution – testing laws and ensuring government actions adhere to them. However, there is no escaping the political nature of this case. The judges are being asked to rule on whether the Brexit-backing voters or Remain-backing MPs should have greater authority. Given the significance of this case, it is the job of the press – also an important part of Britain’s complex constitution – to analyse the judges and their decisions. And in some individual cases we find links to EU institutions and sympathy for the influence of European law.
We hope that none of this will have any influence over the final decision. The Government’s case is a good one and the Supreme Court may well agree. We would urge the judges, whose integrity we respect, to remember the referendum and its verdict. Think of the outrage of millions if they feel that they have been ignored. Increasingly, it is not so much Brexit that divides the country as the bitter struggle to prevent it. Most Remainers have probably accepted defeat and want to get on with their lives. Businesses need to know what is going to happen next. The world is waiting for EU negotiations to begin. It is in the national, even global, interest to proceed.
If the Supreme Court disagrees and says that Parliament must become involved, so be it. In that instance, we hope that Theresa May smooths a Bill through Parliament to trigger Article 50 and limit any unnecessary delay. Of course, there will be attempts to amend such a Bill by Remainers. The Lib Dems, whose parliamentary representation has just jumped from eight to nine, see a future for themselves as a hardline anti-Brexit party. Labour or Conservative MPs who are tempted to join their plot, beware: there will be a price to pay at the next general election. Not only is the country majority Leave but it is also majority pro-democracy. When governments ask the people what to do, they must follow their instructions. Politicians ignore the will of the voters at their peril.