No, Lord Patten. We don’t kowtow here

LAST Thursday, three unelected High Court judges handed down from their lofty benches a ruling that rode roughshod over the views of 17.4million voters – a decisive majority in the EU referendum.

Despite repeated promises to the contrary, they said it should be up to MPs and not the British people to decide how and when Brexit will be triggered.

The Mail was not alone in daring to report this glaringly undemocratic verdict in uncompromising terms, prompting a torrent of pompous humbug from the liberal elite.

Yesterday, an all too familiar face took the sound and fury to a sinister new level.

Step forward Lord Patten, that perfect embodiment of the arrogant political class, who has enjoyed a life of opulent privilege at the taxpayer’s expense since the voters had the good sense to sack him as an MP 24 years ago.

Governor of Hong Kong. European Commissioner. Chancellor of Oxford University. Chairman of the BBC. And now this committed europhile has assumed a new mantle – that of self-appointed Censor-in-Chief.

In an astonishing intervention, after lambasting newspapers for criticising the court ruling and the judges who made it, he urged the Prime Minister to condemn editors and instruct them to behave ‘with more respect’.

Is this a tip he picked up from the Chinese? Because this was a blatant call for the suppression of dissent. And as a former guardian of the BBC’s editorial independence Lord Patten should be truly ashamed.

The fact is that by scrutinising the backgrounds of the judges, the Press – which, thankfully, is still free in this country – is simply doing its job of holding the powerful to account.

It’s Lord Patten and his embittered Remainer friends who are failing to show respect – in this case, for the legions who voted for Brexit. Why on earth should the judiciary – one of the last great unreformed British institutions – be above criticism?

It’s a virtual closed shop, with Supreme Court judges largely selected by their peers. Calls for public hearings to gauge candidates’ views and any political leanings – as happens in the US – have been resisted. Isn’t it time for a change?

Surely, if judges have allegiances which may affect their decisions, the public has a right to know. For example, one of those involved in the High Court ruling and several at the Supreme Court have links with the EU and European courts. How can such detail not be of relevance?

Of course the High Court insists its ruling was purely legalistic. But the political motivation behind the case – and those who brought it – is unashamed and transparent.

Hapless Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wants to use it to force an election (which would be like a turkey voting for Christmas) while the preposterous Nick Clegg (LibDem MPs: 8) hopes it could help overturn the will of the people. How much more political can you get?

To her great credit, Theresa May appears unmoved by the bleatings of the Remainers, saying unequivocally that a free Press and independent judiciary underpin our democracy and that she wouldn’t seek to interfere with either. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt also stoutly defended ‘to the hilt’ the right of this newspaper to criticise the powerful.

Parliament has already had its say on EU membership, when MPs voted by a majority of six to one to let the British people decide in a referendum.

The voters were consulted on Brexit. They carefully considered Brexit. And then they chose Brexit.

And that – for all the bluster of mealymouthed hypocrites like Messrs Patten, Corbyn and Clegg – is what the Government is honour-bound to deliver.