Sound and fury over court ruling on Brexit

As the spectre of Brexit looms over the UK, a high court ruling that only the British parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union has sparked an outpouring of comments and views on the controversy

‘The rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic society. It can check corruption and abuses of power,” said the Guardian in an editorial. “If the rule of law is to be upheld, it is vital that there should be an independent judiciary. This fact appears lost on Brexiter rabblerousers. This voluble, influential political sect has unleashed gales of fury on the England and Wales High Court judges who ruled that only parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the legal route for Britain to leave the EU.”

The paper blamed right-wing British media. It said: “Since the Brexit vote, they have sought to delegitimise their opponents’ views and silence them through intimidation ... These newspapers laced racial innuendo with accusations of treachery, casting themselves as representatives of the people against unelected ‘out-of-touch’ judges and their ‘loaded foreign elite’ Remainer acolytes,” it said.

The Daily Telegraph was one of the papers that lashed out at the court ruling. “The Supreme Court is to be asked by ministers to overturn a High Court ruling that would oblige them to seek the explicit consent of parliament before triggering Article 50 and starting Britain’s departure from the European Union. The higher court’s decision will be constitutionally momentous yet, in a sense, irrelevant. For however the Supreme Court rules, the basic facts of Brexit will not change: Britain voted to leave the EU, so Britain will leave,” the paper said.

It went on to praise the British prime minister for her stance. “To her credit, Theresa May [above] understands this ... Her article will reassure voters who might have worried that the first court ruling might allow Remain-backing politicians who have still not accepted the result of June’s referendum a chance to nullify it. But the Prime Minister’s clarity and resolution show that she will be true to her word and deliver Brexit, one way or another.”

The New York Times was full of admiration for the British judiciary: “Someday, the British court ruling on Brexit may be studied as a milestone in parliamentary democracy. For now, though, it throws Britain’s fateful move to part ways with the European Union into considerable disarray.” Examining the implications of the far-reaching judgement, the paper said: “If Britain’s Supreme Court — which may hear the government’s appeal in early December — upholds the ruling, the exit process could be seriously complicated and delayed, or even blocked.”

The Straits Times in Singapore appealed for calm in the aftermath of the court ruling. “British politicians have called for an end to harsh criticism of judges who, last week, dealt a blow to the government’s Brexit preparations, with a former attorney-general saying the attacks by some fellow lawmakers and newspapers reminded him of fascism. While other Conservative lawmakers have now pushed back against the criticisms, there is something smacking of the fascist state about the attacks ... It shows either a total misunderstanding of the UK Constitution, which such critics periodically extol – or a deliberate desire to destroy it,” the paper said.