Should Parliament have the final say on whether there really is a Brexit?

I’M VERY angry about the High Court ruling on Brexit. During the referendum debate we complained so much about the selfish elite in the Remain camp. Just look at the woman who has taken this case to court — a Labour-supporting, rich banker of the type who almost brought down many countries. This woman hides her contempt for ordinary people behind her ‘charitable works’. She claims only Parliament can make a decision that leads to the loss of her ‘rights’ under EU law. Has she never heard of something higher than the will of MPs — the will of the people? She makes me glad I voted Leave. Let’s have Brexit, no matter how hard it has to be.

JILL DOBBS, London.

The British Parliament passed the legislation required to give the public a referendum on our relationship with europe. In this legally sanctioned referendum, the public voted to leave and we had every expectation that our will would be respected. It is not the business of judges to interfere. Many politicians have decided they don’t like the referendum result and want to overturn the express will of the people. I would suggest that much of their concern relates to their own career hopes. ROGER ORMSBY, Abergele, Clwyd.

THERE goes Brexit. The Establishment has spoken! Things have been reasonably stable because those in the know have been reassuring others in the know that Brexit is never going to happen. Years of delaying tactics will be used to thwart the wishes of the majority, by which time we’ll all have died of boredom. Don’t you just love democracy as practised in the UK. Where’s Wat Tyler when you need him?

PETER NUGENT, Bootle, Merseyside. I’M noT surprised by the high Court judges’ ruling that the final say on leaving the eU should go back to Parliament for the politicians to decide if a

democratic vote by the people of the UK should be upheld. Judges are not elected by the people and in many cases give rulings that most of the public find crazy. Maybe we should change the way in which judges are selected so they sit for only a given period. If the final decision on leaving or staying is made by MPs, I trust all their names and the way in which they voted will be published. It will finally bring to an end the illusion that the United Kingdom is a democratic nation. ROYSTON G. MEAD, Alness, Ross-shire.

MEMBERS of the legal profession have decided their learned opinions and vested interests have preference over the clear Brexit vote of the nation. In the past, this could have been classed as treason. Mrs May has the people behind her to a degree previously shared only by Mr Churchill and Mrs Thatcher. She should press on regardless to release us unconditionally from the constraints of Europe.

JOSEPH HANLEY, Wellington, Shropshire.

Those people criticising the high Court’s decision on Article 50 are showing contempt for the rule of law, a system under which judges, without fear or favour, apply laws passed by Parliament in the light of centuries of common law. Political systems in which judges are associated personally with cases they hear are all too often those in which judges are intimidated or killed.

ALISON HARVEY, address supplied.

THREE highly experienced judges, after a lengthy consideration of the law and parliamentary constitution, have made a ruling. Just because you don’t like their decision is no reason to call them ‘enemies of the people’ and ‘out of touch’ (Mail). Let’s get this right: Brexiteers claim that we’ve had the sovereignty of our Parliament taken away from us by the EU. But now the judiciary has confirmed that sovereignty, they don’t want it. They should make up their minds.

HELEN CLUTTON, Dorchester, Dorset.

WhAT do Brexiteers want now that the ‘enemies of the people’ (Mail) have upheld the right of MPs to have a say on triggering Article 50? A sovereign Parliament or a sovereign people? When does the one overrule the other? Why do we have elected representatives if not to represent us and protect our interests? ‘We want our country back,’ they say. What, so an administration that hasn’t been directly elected by the people, but was cobbled together by a parliamentary party vote, can decide anything on our behalf? Is it the case that as long as we are out of the eU, nothing else matters? TREVOR RIGG, Edinburgh.

DESCRIBING the High Court judges as ‘enemies of the people’ is over the top. Almost every day, my partner and I meet people who regret having voted for Brexit. They fear the rising cost of living caused by the falling value of the pound. Opinions are changing and a second referendum should be held.

DOUGLAS LAWSON, Cheltenham, Glos.

only in a first-past-the-post system would anyone dare to suggest that the 52/48 per cent result of the eU referendum was a ‘clear popular mandate’. This allows even leading academics to join fearful politicians in making such an absurd claim. If we were to take a socalled average British family with two children over 18, two will have voted for and two against. If a large crowd were to vote by a show of hands, we would be hard pushed to notice the fact that marginally over half voted leave. so June 23 should be taken as ‘advisory’ and Parliament left to consider, with the option of going either way.

QUENTIN DEAKIN, Tywyn, Gwynedd.