Should parliament have a say on Brexit?
The UK's Supreme Court on Monday began hearing the appeal against the High Court ruling that parliament must have a say on the Brexit plans. The most senior judge stressed at the start of the four-day hearing that the court was dealing only with legal and not political issues. Not true, some commentators object. Others point out that parliament wouldn't block Brexit anyway.
Supreme Court must respect Brexit vote
Britain will face grave political repercussions if the British Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the London High Court, The Daily Mail points out:
“Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he’ll delay Brexit legislation with an interminable string of Commons amendments. Euro-fanatic Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems (MPs: 9) says he’ll simply vote against unless there’s a second referendum on the terms of Brexit. ... So, in what universe could it be argued that this court ruling is not political? How long ago it seems that David Cameron told voters: 'This is your decision.' And how right the Attorney General Jeremy Wright now is to warn the Supreme Court that upholding the High Court’s decision would be to treat the electorate with contempt.”
MPs would not prevent Brexit
The outrage on the part of Eurosceptics at the prospect of the British Parliament being given a say on Brexit is incomprehensible, The Evening Standard argues:
“Could the Supreme Court’s decision determine whether we leave? The belief that it could is why some characterise the claimants’ argument as an attempt to block Brexit. On its face, the argument does nothing of the sort. In practice, the decision is unlikely to make much of a difference. If Parliament needs to legislate before Article 50 is triggered, it will almost certainly do so. If it refused to do so, a general election would inevitably follow. It is hard to imagine a political party, certainly any of today’s parties, winning on a platform of backtracking on the referendum result.”