#Theresa May has been vague and very good at avoiding the questions in regards to what our terms are, but the worst aspect is the reaction to our judicial system. Recently #High Court judges confirmed that #article 50 cannot be activated by May alone, but by an agreement from our elected parliament. Various papers ran stories about the judges who have stated what the law is in this regard. Much of our media have run stories that are incredibly dangerous and sets a precarious precedence for the future.

The government’s reaction has been equally incendiary and so has some prominent leave campaigners. Which today saw the proceedings begin on the appeal of the High Court decision by the government to the Supreme Court, with a verdict expected in January.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Brexit means Brexit

Irrespective of what Brexit means, one of the main leave arguments was of sovereignty of British law, except when British law is being applied too many see fit to claim it is undemocratic. A law that was created in the early 20th century, in the mother of parliaments, is being applied by an independent judicial. But many media outlets screamed “unelected bureaucrats” are “making a mockery of democracy”, which undermines the very core of our democratic system. This puts at risk the very fabric of our system which has remained a highly-regarded system around the world, our system is vital in preventing dictatorships.

The complexities of leaving must be fully understood and that is why it is understandable that May and her government are taking their time. But this presents the question why didn’t those in favour of leaving have a basic idea of what our terms would be? Why didn’t they even think about what it might entail? They barely agreed on what global model was suitable to adapt, let alone create one for ourselves.

Advertisements

Enemies of the public

The Daily Mail declared that these High Court judges were “enemies of the public” and this is fundamental tactic in creating a far-right dictatorship. Claiming that the people who have studied and worked within the area their entire lives, who are just interpreting a law created by parliament itself, are enemies of the public. This precedence is dangerous and if the judges are defeated in the Supreme Court, this could then be used by the government in the future to push through all kinds of unsavoury laws to oppress society and our freedoms.

The Daily Mail used the six degrees of separation tactic to claim the ability of the judges to be impartial. But if you want to use this idea to claim that they lacked impartiality, then surely you should look towards those who are reporting in this manner and their ability to be impartial. The Daily Mail campaigned for leave and spent a lot of money on their campaign, are they being impartial in their reporting of those judges or are they spouting sensationalist and dangerous rhetoric, whilst fundamentally questioning the very core of our democratic system?

Sovereignty of British law

When you get those prominent leave campaigners and hardened Brexit supporters claim that the vote was for British law to be applied by British judges, but react in this manner you must question why? The official Leave campaigns slogan was “Taking Back Control”, except what they meant was not taking ‘back’ control because that would mean lacking it in the first place.

Advertisements

Was this seen as opportunity to take control and use it to be able to further oppress opposition by continually claiming “the people have voted”? There is a danger that our democratic system will be undermined and leave it open to repugnant or potentially malignant scenarios from the current government or future governments and leaders.