A factually incorrect argument offered by government lawyers lost the case concerning the role of parliament in Brexit at the High Court yesterday, fuelling fears that elements inside the government are trying to sabotage the UK’s exit from the EU.
“Government lawyers argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people”, who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum. But the lord chief justice declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.” reports the Guardian.
The legal point is that parliament has the power to call for a referendum and empower the government to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union if the vote is “Yes.” Parliament has done this.
By triggering Brexit, the government is now only acting as a the executor of a decision already voted on in parliament, and with an overwhelming majority, and not as a sovereign power deriving its authority from “the will of the people” separate from parliament, which needs to get parliamentary approval.
The government already has parliamentary approval for triggering a Brexit.
To win the appeal, government lawyers have to argue that “due process” has been followed, parliament has already been involved. It allowed a referendum and mandated the government to trigger a Brexit in the event of a yes vote. From this fact, it follows that parliament has been and remains sovereign in the Brexit, removing the objection of the lord chief justice yesterday.
The arguments of government lawyers were so factually incorrect (the UK government does not derive its authority from the will of the people but from parliament according to the constitution), it is reasonable to ask if these government lawyers aren’t, actually, acting in collusion with the lord chief justice to sabotage Brexit and to allow a politicized judgement, which ignores the essential fact that parliament already has been involved to falsely imply the government is acting as sovereign deriving its authority solely from the will of the people when seeking to trigger Brexit.
Winning in court is all about matching up the right arguments and evidence with the legal issues at stake. The government lawyers must have known they were offering the wrong arguments to win the case.
True, I did not study law. But I do understand how to apply logic and how to marshall evidence pertinent to the relevant points of law under discussion. That is why I have, on my own, with no help from any lawyer, working through translators here in Greece, been able to produce all the arguments and evidence of the corruption of crooked clergy, police (including the deputy commissioner of Larisa) and prosecutors (including the first prosecutor of Larisa court and the Supreme Court prosecutor Efstathia Spyropoulou) needed to force an investigation and clap them in jail.
If I offered, however, evidence about the wrong doing of the first prosecutor when seeking to convict the deputy police commissioner, for example, I can be sure I will never get a conviction of the first prosecutor. Evidence and arguments have to be matched up with the legal issues in the right order to win a case.
Or suppose I were wrongly accused of speeding. Suppose I could prove through the time of a bank transaction that I was not in the car at that time, and, therefore, could not have been speeding. If I ignored that strong evidence and offered the court instead a medical certificate stating that I had the flu at that time, I would lose the case.
The logic to win an Appeal of the High Court ruling is simple.
The necessary condition for triggering Brexit has to be the involvement of the sovereign parliament under the constitution.
Government lawyers, therefore, need to build their case on demonstrating that this necessary condition had already been met. “Due process”, the involvement of the parliament, has already been followed. The government is now only acting as the executor of a decision by parliament not of the will of the peopl. That decision of parliament was to allow a referendum and in the event of a yes vote, to mandate an immediate Brexit.
They should also argue that circumventing the sovereign decision of parliament by such clearly crooked justice will ignite a constitutional crisis.
Government lawyers, however, focussed instead on a factually incorrect argument that a royal prerogative for Brexit expresses the will of the people, allowing the biased and crooked lord chief justice to issue the factually incorrect ruling that due constitutional process involving parliament had not been followed and to prescribe a new vote as if one had not occurred.
The government lawyers involved should be investigated. Talk about throwing a case!
Tory and other MPs rushing to reverse Brexit will be digging their own grave. If the people lose all faith in parliamentary democracy, it could lead to civil war of the kind now predicted in France.