A statement was read in the House of Commons yesterday and repeated later in the House of Lords regarding the 'Process for Invoking Article 50'. The statement was read in the Commons by David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and in the Lords by Lord Bridges. Both statements were followed by lengthy and impassioned debate.
There are two elements that struck me, both of which I tried to reference in a question I put in the Lords.
First, the statement begins by saying:
The Government's priority at every stage following the referendum has been to respect the outcome of that referendum and ensure it is delivered on.
My immediate response was to wonder if respect for the outcome was being matched by respect for the people. If 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, that leaves almost the same number who did not. They need to be respected as well as those who voted to leave. The constant referral to the motives of all those who regret the referendum result – and question the process since – as obstructive is disrespectful. We have a very divided country. Many would like to reverse the decision. But, many who regret it do not see it this way, yet still find themselves criticised and their own integrity impugned. The statement says:
And we will give no quarter to anyone who, while going through the motions of respecting the outcome of the referendum, in fact seek ways to thwart the decision of the British people.
And that is being used to justify writing off the legitimate questions being asked in Parliament and beyond.
My second point, and the one I focused on in my question in the Lords, has to do with the closing paragraph:
We are going to get on with delivering on the mandate to leave the European Union in the best way possible for the UK's national interest – best for jobs, best for growth and best for investment.
Good. The government does need to get on with its work. But, have we really reduced 'the national interest' to economics? Does the national interest not also include what will be best for social order, reconciliation and the maturity of the public/political discourse? If so, does the government not also have a responsibility to defend the independence of the judiciary and those who do what the constitution requires of them without them being subjected to ad hominem vituperation at the hands of a press that shapes the public conversation and does not simply reflect it?
In the House of Lords every attempt to get the government to condemn the behaviour of elements of the press met with a stonewall. Understandable in the circumstances, but neither helpful nor acceptable. The government cannot simply wipe its hands of a declining public discourse that its own language might be seen to encourage.
The statement can be read here.
Posted with Blogsy
November 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm
agree with this 100%!
November 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Everyone should respect the majority vote.
November 8, 2016 at 2:14 pm
It strikes me in all the controversy about the press (or some parts of it) versus the judges that there is a distinction to be drawn between the independence of the judiciary (surely a vital necessity) and the impartiality of the particular judges involved. They are human beings, and that means that they are never going to be perfectly impartial, any more than the rest of us are totally impartial. So a question that surely should be asked in the current controversy is whether the three judges concerned managed to be adequately impartial for their judgement to be recognised without question, or whether it may be that partiality crept in to such a degree that their judgement needs to be strongly questionned.
This means that blindly supporting the judges and blindly attacking them in a sort of gut-reaction way because they did not deliver the expected result are both inadeqaute responses.
November 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Thanks for posting and the link to the statement and follow-on questions/comments in the house… it makes quite depressing reading. I am very disappointed that Mr Davis chose repeatedly to uphold the freedom of the press over protecting the judiciary in his comments.
November 8, 2016 at 4:24 pm
The next election I am voting for the party, or alliance of parties, that engineers the most rapid transition off of fossil fuels, and invests in healing the damage done from global warming. The good news is that this stimulates the right kind of growth, and jobs, and helps engender social justice within and without the UK, and into the future. Other countries are getting on with it, China, Sweden, Denmark, Germany. The causes and effects of climate change are a moral issue, this country, Europe, the whole world, faces a massive existential crisis, this Brexit stuff is a very unhelpful distraction.
November 8, 2016 at 4:57 pm
I agree with the Governments position on this and think any attempt to change this is not in the best interests of the country . I’m not alone in this , watch the tremendous support of the public tomorrow in the marches caking for a strong stance and no dilution in the referendum decision, Any member of Parlianment who fails to support the will of his constituents on this should be deselected . They are there to represent the will of the outcome of the referendum . Any attempt by the upper house only is not only politically mischievous but brings it into even worse light in the eyes of the majority . We do accept the results of a General Election as final and so should we a referendum vote .
November 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm
But have we really reduced ‘the national interest’ to economics?
You will find that a country where there are enough well-paid jobs to go round everyone will have significantly fewer issues with social order and reconciliation – shalom as well-being and all that. And you will find the converse is equally true.
As to the maturity of political discourse, nothing Brexit does or doesn’t do will change that, I fear.
November 8, 2016 at 5:24 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
November 9, 2016 at 7:18 am
The people are always right, are they? Not so sure of that after this morning’s news from the USA. Heading into very dangerous times, I think. Cameron and Conservatives put party interests over the national interest when they decided to hold a referendum on EU membership. Similarly, the US Democrats and Obama put party interests above the national interest in selecting Clinton over Sanders.
November 9, 2016 at 8:26 pm
I very much agree with Nick Baines’ posting and welcome the the points made. The government’s threat to “have no quarter” with those who question government moves to implement Brexit strike me as fascistic.
To respond to others who have comments:
I disagree with Mr Finch that the referendum result should be “respected”. The referendum process was flawed because it was not required to meet the standards of parliamentary elections as set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. In the 2010 general election the Labour candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth peddled lies about his closest challenger and went on to win the election. The result was challenged under the above Act and an election court set aside the result and ordered a second election (the Labour “victor” having been disqualified for three years). Because these precautions were not put in place for the referendum (it was only advisory) the Brexit side was able to get away with a whole series of untruths that should have invalidated the result.,
The referendum result was not only close but deeply flawed and does not deserve to be respected.
I have some sympathy with Ian Fraser who asserts that all this talk about Brexit is a distraction from serious matters such as the environment. I agree – but the UK leaving the EU is also a profoundly important issue. The fault lies with David Cameron (history will judge him as the worst prime minister since Lord North) – Cameron should not have set this hare running. Having set the constitutional house on fire he has been very quick to exit the scene. This was all so unnecessary.
John Toothill makes the basic error of confusing delegates and representatives. MPs are not delegated to follow their constituents’ bidding but to use their own judgement in parliament in representing them. The clearest expression of this is the address by Edmund Burke to his electors in Bristol (q.v.) where he argues that if he fails to use his judgement on their behalf, he dos them a disservice. In like vein, the late Tony Benn used to say that he was elected to be a signpost and not a weather vane. Since 430 out of 650 MPs voted “remain” they would do the nation a great service by halting Brexit, since it is clearly NOT in the nation’s best interest.
November 10, 2016 at 7:02 pm
I don’t think we need be too worried about the sensitivities of Judges: they are a tough breed.
I recognise and understand why your mind goes to the German experience, but there is another important overseas experience.
There is an influential school of US jurisprudence called ” the American Realists” which teaches ” if you want to know and predict what the law is, or will be, don’t study the statute text – study the Judges”
One of the greatest US litigators Jerry Spence refined this to a science. He taught that EVERY case turns on emotion: were that not the case, he asks, why do dust-dry tax statutes that ought to be predictable with mathematical certainty frequent split the Supreme Court 4/5?
He retired having never lost a Civil Case and last lost a criminal one in 1969!
This is why the Trump election win is so important. He will appoint Judges from the “strict constructionist school” rather than the more ” activist” wing of the profession.
Both abortion and gay marriage were established in the USA not by elected representatives but by activist Judges “creatively” reading the intentions of the founding fathers on these topics to the point of absurdity. The same interpretative approach led them to conclude that those good Christian founding fathers would have been offended by school prayer and nativity scenes on publicly owned property outside fire stations at Christmas.
In each of these cases – and indeed the Brexit case, the Judges could have traced a different path – using the art of ” distinguishing” inconvenient principles. They didn’t, they made a choice affected by their own views – one might say prejudices.
Once judges choose to be legislative activists on contentious issues they put themselves into the firing line.
If nobody is above the law, no legislator can be ,above criticism.
November 11, 2016 at 7:24 pm
I have made no basic error as John Cole puts it . He makes a badic error if he fails to realise that MP s may be the Kings but the electorate are the king makers . If an MP of any political persuasion make the wrong call it is only to be expected to reflect in the level of support at the next General Election or in their prospect of re-adoption as candidate. Feelings are running high on this matter and those who support the unelected , unaudited and dictatorial actions of the EU will pay the price. Our thoughts today are with the war dead who fought for our freedom and sovereignty . This must be preserved. The public expressed their wishes and were not put off by the remain campaign threats and false forecasts of doom if we failed to support it. Fears that have proved so wrong .It is pathetic that now political mischief is being threatened by certain parliamentary parties and others. I fully support the P.M and government in their actions on this .
November 11, 2016 at 8:12 pm
I thank John Cole for his observations and comments. Transitioning off of fossil fuels rapidly and investing in healing from the damage done by global warming are in the national interest. With respect, this priority trumps Brexit, an unhelpful sideshow. The science backing the truth of the climate crisis, and the urgency are clear, but not given the priority needed because people are not yet demanding it enough of their governance. Nor will they if there are massive distractions like a poisoned political and public discourse, as is being witnessed both here and in the USA, the two developed countries where the neoliberal project bit the deepest. We are seeing here and in the USA more “shock doctrine” tactics, as governments and politicians, who are not that interested in politics and economics where people matter, take advantage of a circumstance that has emerged to bring about changes that suit them and their power base. There is now a president elect who is a climate change denier; his vice president elect has openly questioned and doubted the veracity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The appointment of who will over see the transition of the Environmental Protection Agency is a notorious climate change denier. There will be more appointments of people who deny science. Do not be surprised if Sarah Palin ends up in Trump’s administration. This is setting more than a bad example, it is actually dangerous for the USA and the world. I think the only thing that will accelerate the transition off of fossil fuels here is a change of government. The current government has not shown good judgment on so many matters, not just the wisdom or otherwise of having a referendum on EU membership. Against almost all scientific advice, and seeing the examples elsewhere of the environmental cost of fracking, they are insisting on going ahead with a fossil fuel extraction which leaks methane at every stage of extraction, instead of encouraging investment in renewables. Methane is 85 times more damaging than CO2. Fossil fuels are boom and bust, plus they cause environmental damage. Renewables are clean, and inventing, making, installing, maintaining and growing reneable energy systems will bring good sustainable jobs. The time for the revenue neutral rising carbon tax is coming soon, I think, and with respect to our church leaders I very much hope that they adopt this position, like they have divestment in fossil fuels, and pressures accordingly whoever governs. Has anyone else noticed that the only politicians who regularly mention climate change as being a very significant threat are Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn? A change of government is needed, the current one is not going to change, and Brexit is a symptom of a deeper problem.
November 11, 2016 at 10:57 pm
Young People’s Burden, this court case is part of, and explains why, actions on the climate crisis are in the national interests of every nation, and therefore the world as a whole, working together:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/20161111_EmphaticRulingbyJudgeAiken.pdf