THE reaction of Brexiters to the court hearings on Article 50 has been a pretty unpleasant spectacle. Certain tabloids, a few commentators who should know better and some of the Brexit ministers themselves have characterised the case as undemocratic and an insult to the voters who supported leaving the EU. Some of the more extreme advocates of Brexit have even suggested the judges are biased.
Now that the case has reached the Supreme Court, the president Lord Neuberger has directly addressed the furore by announcing restrictions on what can be printed. He has done so, he says, because some individuals involved have been threatened and abused.
In his statement, Lord Neuberger also defended the role the courts have played and rejected the idea that the judges are trying to thwart the will of the people. The judges will decide the case not according to political creed, he said, but according to the law.
Lord Neuberger’s statement will not be well received by many Brexiters, but what he says is in accordance with the constitutional role of British courts which can, and must, hold the Government to account when necessary. Had Theresa May prevailed, the UK Government would have been able to start the Brexit process without consulting Westminster, let alone the devolved parliaments, and we should be thankful for the small group of activists who had the determination – and the money – to fight the Government in court.
The Supreme Court’s job now is to rule on the correct procedure and issue its judgment without fear or favour, not to take a view on whether Brexit itself is right or wrong. Some Brexiters say the fact the Government has been taken to court is a threat to democracy and a dangerous moment in our constitutional history. But in reality it is just the opposite – the court case proves that, in a moment of crisis, our constitution is working exactly as it should.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel