Much has been written about the ruling in the High Court that the government must seek a vote in Parliament prior to activating Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Heck, I’ve written about it HERE, pointing to the variety of opinions on the court’s judgement.
It’s the USA’s National Review magazine that offers two well argued interpretations – one against the ruling, the other for. A famously litigious country that is the USA, and one where Supreme Court judges interpret their constitution, it’s perhaps fitting that two American writers offer their perspective. Both deserve reading in full.
Tom Rogan writes in Brexit: British Judges Defy British People,
Whatever the outcome, this is a deep judicial strike at the democratically enacted will of the British people.
And concludes in his article,
The consequences of yesterday’s ruling are clear. The democratic authority of the British people, burnished by the Blitz and Magna Carta, is now in limbo. Forming cause from arrogance, the judiciary has acted to restrain British freedom. June’s referendum had a commonly understood purpose: to devolve the decision about the U.K.’s future in the EU to British citizens. The outcome of that decision was clear: Brexit. The Supreme Court must remember those whom the High Court has forgotten: its master, the British people.
Meanwhile Andrew Stuttaford, referencing Tom Rogan’s article in Brexit and the Judges, says,
I’m not convinced [at Tom Rogan’s deep judicial strike]. As regular readers around here will know, I have supported Brexit for quite some years. I still do. Nevertheless, I do not support the idea that the referendum result plunges the rest of the British constitution into suspended animation. If Britain is to leave the EU, it must do so according to the law of the land. The EU has done a great deal of damage to the UK’s constitution. It would be ironic if Brexit were to do a bit more.