Miller isn’t being straight with the British public

Gina Miller has won her case against the government. The Prime Minister had hoped to invoke Article 50 herself, but the court has ruled that this would be unconstitutional. It will now be for Parliament to decide when to invoke Article 50.

Following the verdict remainers who don’t accept the referendum are in a stronger position. They may attempt to delay Brexit for as long as possible, or to water it down.

The government will go to the Supreme Court to appeal against the High Court’s decision, but MPs are resigned to losing the appeal.


False praise for Parliamentary Sovereignty


Today, remainers have nothing but praise for that now most sacred of principles, Parliamentary Sovereignty. When she emerged from the court, Miller issued the following statement:

“The result today is about all of us, it’s not about me or my team. It’s about our United Kingdom and all our futures. It’s not about how anyone voted; every one of us voted for the best country and the best future. This case was about the process not politics…

The judgment, I hope – when it’s read by the Government and they contemplate the full judgment – that they will make the wise decision of not appealing but pressing forward and having a proper debate in our sovereign parliament, our mother of parliaments that we are so admired for all over the world.

Miller’s pretence that her intervention is not political is just that: a pretence.


Miller gives the game away


In an article for the Guardian, Miller gives the game away:

“I was never binary remain or leave. I was very much of the sentiment, and still am, that it was about remain, reform and review”.

“I simply couldn’t keep going to bed every night thinking, well what does [the Brexit vote] mean for my children, what does this mean for the future, what does it mean for everyone?”

Hardly impartial on the referendum question, then…


Remainers are singing from a new hymn sheet


Miller and her fellow travellers who would have us believe that they are merely concerned with maintenance of Parliamentary Sovereignty are not being straight with the public.

Where were they over the last four decades as Parliament lost ever more competences to the EU? They were nowhere to be seen.

The truth is that on the rare occasions that remainers mentioned sovereignty, it was to argue that its preservation was no longer feasible in the 21st Century. Britain should instead ‘pool’ its sovereignty with the other EU countries (read: give it up) to enjoy closer cooperation.


A promise is a promise


Readers may recall the government’s £9,300,000 pro-EU leaflets which were distributed to every household in the country at taxpayers’ expense. In those leaflets the words ‘democracy’ and ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ were conspicuous for their absence.

However, the government did manage to include a promise which formed the basis upon which the entire referendum took place:

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

On June 23 the people voted for Britain to leave the EU. The government must now implement their wish, in accordance with its promise.

Brexiteers respect parliamentary sovereignty. But it should hardly be surprising if they are concerned by the possible consequences of the court’s verdict, when as many as 80% of MPs voted to remain.