Friends of the people, fighting for democracy

Friends of the people, fighting for democracy

So the Lords has passed two amendments to Article 50. These will be debated by the Commons next week.

Who let them stick their oar in? Well, it was those judges who allowed Parliament a vote on triggering Article 50. Those 'enemies of the people' whose decision was going to lead to chaos, delay Brexit by a year, force Mrs May to say what our aims are in the negotiations, force an early election... OK, that was the Daily Mail and some overheated Brexiteers, and sadly none of it came to pass.

The Mail said these 'enemies of the people' had 'declared war on democracy'.

Democracy now tends to mean taking decisions based on majority votes. Brexit was clearly democratic - a clear majority in a free vote. The campaign lies may have swayed people but are irrelevant. So surely the judges were going against the will of the people?

The will of the people? 17.4 million voted Leave, out of a UK population of around 65 million and another 5 million who live abroad. So those judges (and their 'unholy alliance') could only be enemies of at most a quarter of the people.

Enemies? The judges decided on a point of law. They were asked whether the government could remove a right the people have, without first getting the consent of Parliament. The judges said no. So they are in fact friends of all the people.

Warring on democracy? The judges said Parliament should be allowed to vote but didn't say anything at all about how Parliament should vote. It is unclear how allowing a free vote is warring against democracy - unlike the actions of those Brexiteers who made death threats against Gina Miller and the judges, and the one who actually murdered Jo Cox, MP.

OK, so they weren't enemies of the people, and they weren't declaring jihad against democracy, but were they simply wrong? Why can't the government do what they were asked to do by majority vote? Why ask Parliament?

The Bill of Rights, 1689, says "dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal". The government was going to use the royal prerogative to remove the people's rights (e.g. free movement, European citizenship) without asking Parliament. Now just imagine that the new Tory leader had been unkeen on Brexit and the Queen tried using the royal prerogative to force it through... Democratic?

So those judges - and Gina Miller, her funders and her supporters - turn out to be friends of the people, fighting for democracy. No wonder Wikipedia deems the Daily Mail too unreliable to be used as a source.