MP failed to ad­dress my Brexit ques­tions

The Galloway News - - [email protected] VIEW - Peter Thomson, Kirkcud­bright

Sir – A few weeks ago you kindly printed a let­ter from me to Mr Jack, MP for Dum­fries and Galloway, re­quest­ing clear answers to a num­ber of se­ri­ous is­sues Brexit will cause his con­stituents in Galloway.

I have now had a re­ply over two pages of A4 which ad­dressed none of the con­cerns I asked him to ad­dress.

To pré­cis his let­ter; Ms May’s Brexit is deal is good for his con­stituents be­cause he, Mr Jack, be­lieves it is a good deal for his con­stituents. Well, Mr Jack; I be­lieve in the tooth fairy but I would not con­sider it a good enough excuse to drag the sov­er­eign peo­ple of Scot­land out of the EU against its con­sid­ered will.

Mr Jack will seek to hide be­hind the ar­cane rit­u­als of the House of Com­mons to de­fend his con­trary view on the EU to that of the ma­jor­ity of his con­stituents, yet there is a small prob­lem with that.

In Lord Cooper’s re­view of McCor­mack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) he made the fol­low­ing per­ti­nent points. Scots Law and con­sti­tu­tional prac­tice are pro­tected for all time from in­ter­fer­ence by the Union Par­lia­ment where “all time” means “all time”.

Un­der Scots Law and con­sti­tu­tional prac­tice there is no equiv­a­lent to the English Law con­sti­tu­tional con­cept of the “Crown in Par­lia­ment” as the peo­ple of Scot­land are sov­er­eign. This is­sue was tested in Axa et al vs the Scot­tish Par­lia­ment where in part of the judge­ment the UK Supreme Court re­fused Axa et al’s pe­ti­tion be­cause it had no power to set aside a bill of the Scot­tish Par­lia­ment which clearly re­flected the con­sid­ered will of the peo­ple of Scot­land.

Lord Cooper, in 1953, also stated, in his view, there would come a point in the fu­ture where all the fudges on where the peo­ple of Scot­land’s sovereignt­y lay within the UK Union Par­lia­ment would un­ravel and the UK Par­lia­men­tary Union, in its cur­rent English dom­i­nated ba­sis, would in­evitably col­lapse.

In ef­fect Mr Jack is bound by Scots Law and con­sti­tu­tional prac­tice, be­ing elected from a Scot­tish con­stituency, to rep­re­sent the con­sid­ered will of his con­stituents and can­not be­have like an English MP and slav­ishly fol­low his party. Even in this con­stituency the ma­jor­ity of vot­ers, who ex­er­cised their vote, de­sired to stay within the EU.

As an aside, I note there are a num­ber of Scot­tish Tories now seek­ing in­de­pen­dence for the Scot­tish branch from the Lon­don Party, at their spring con­fer­ence, with­out see­ing the irony of their stance. This is in re­sponse, no doubt, to the lat­est polling fig­ures from You Gov in Scot­land which pre­dict the Tory Party and its Labour part­ner in Brexit stu­pid­ity will be left with one MP each af­ter a Gen­eral Elec­tion in Scot­land, held within the next three months.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.