YP Letters: Brexit chance to write our constitution

THE decision to rule that the Government doesn’t have the power to exercise the Royal Prerogative to invoke Art 50, without the consent of Parliament, probably took most informed observers by surprise. Quite simply, it would appear to fly in the face of the case law and it must be presumed, for that reason, that the Supreme Court will, in due course, over-rule it?

The bigger question though is whether there should be such thing a prerogative power in a modern democracy? As anyone who has ever set foot in a university law school will tell you, the British constitution is frequently described as being, “wonderfully flexible.” Indeed it is, but what this so often means in practice is that it is easy for governments and politicians in general, to fiddle about with it and defy democracy.

Our wonderfully flexible constitution allowed us to be taken into the EU in 1973 without the people being formally asked in a referendum. By the time they were asked, in 1975, to quell unrest in Harold Wilson’s cabinet, we were already in it. 
We were only asked if we wanted to stay... not quite the same thing, is it?

Had we had a referendum every time our Government ceded more and more power to the EU, I wonder whether we would we be where we are today? Imagine how different the EU might look, too?

Brexit needs to go hand in hand with constitutional reform. This will have two distinct advantages. Firstly, we will never be taken back in to something like the EU without the people’s express consent. Secondly, everybody will be clear about who has the power to do what and in which circumstances, without judges having to make controversial decisions as to what the law is, causing huge public disquiet, unjustified ridicule of the judiciary and the disgusting abuse of the lady who asked the question.

From: Dr Glyn Powell, Bakersfield Drive, Kellngton.

WHILE I fully understand the ire of the Government at the High Court decision that Parliament should approve a bill before Article 50 is invoked, I nevertheless agree that Parliament should be fully involved in the process. One of the reasons for leaving the EU was its lack of democratic accountability.

The decision, however, does not mean that the Government’s negotiating position on EU withdrawal be made public. Nor does it mean that MPs can use Parliament to usurp the will of the people. The people rightly voted for EU withdrawal and Parliament (both the Commons and Lords) should recognise the will of the people by giving the Government its support in both invoking Article 50 and also in upcoming negotiations with the EU on withdrawal.

From: Kevin Webb LLB JP, Baxenden, Accrington.

I FEEL that the media comment on the three High Court judges was unfair; but we must remember that very few people realise that superior courts make decisions purely on points of law; no matter how the judges may feel themselves.

Of course, if the British Parliament is deemed to be supreme in all its works, then this ‘supremacy’ must extend to everything else and everybody, including the EU and its associated bodies. In that event, nothing can supercede the House of Commons. Everything else, including non-elected officials overseas becomes automatically irrelevant.

The other issue for us to ponder, nevertheless, is the status of a popular referendum.

We have had two of these now, one in 1975 which produced a result that was never questioned or contested.

The question now arises, should the June 23 referendum not be given exactly the same treatment, not be contested, and form part of our (unwritten) constitution?

There may well be more such popular votes – excluding general elections – and should the results of these not be honoured by Parliament and everyone else?

Frivolous attempts to do so must be discarded at a very early stage, I believe.

From: Sandy Glossop, Oughtibridge, Sheffield.

IT is important then that the Government subjects its strategy for consideration by Parliament before detailed negotiations take place, I have much more faith in the combined wisdom of 650 MPs than Mrs May and her three Brexit zealot ministers.

Unfortunately, your Editorial (The Yorkshire Post, November 5) appears to consider that the efforts of the South Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce should carry more weight in these difficult times than the opinion of House of Commons. How very typical of the parochial perspective of the post.

From: John Fisher, Menwith Hill.

THE Government’s attempt to do a deal with Nissan to remain in the UK is a potential shot in the foot for the negotiators attempting to negotiate a soft Brexit. It is sending a signal to the EU that we are prepared to consider paying international companies to remain within the UK after we leave the EU.

Where the cost of financing such an incentive for companies to remain in the EU would come from is another problem for the UK government.

From: Barrie Crowther, Walton, Wakefield.

AS a farmer, I am now smothered in red tape, legislation and human rights by the EU. The old excuse that I get paid for this wears a bit thin when its our own money coming back. For me the sooner we leave, the better.

From: Phil Hanson, Beechmount Close, Baildon, Shipley.

IT is reasonable to suggest that the recent devaluation of sterling was driven by a long overdue revaluation and opportunism, as is the way with these situations.

In the longer term, our country and children will be much better off both politically and economically. Alas, the same cannot be said for the Lib Dems, who are now irrelevant.