It would be a brave commoner who would match the Brussels’ balls to his racket in the situation we find ourselves in. This may be a romantic delusion, but I can’t help thinking that a Prince may be better placed to take counsel and then show courage under fire, given the stakes. I can’t help thinking her son would make a better ‘Chief Negotiator’ than any of the trained diplomats available to her. We have a female PM, a female head of the ‘Supreme Court’ and a Lady on our money who, it strikes me, is the nonpareil ‘expert’ on British politics alive today. I must admit to being a late convert to ‘feminism’, having seen good evidence recently that women are better at life than I am. Secondly, it may just be my old fashioned take on our Constitution, unwritten though it is, that Her Majesty still holds a hand in this game, whether or not she chooses to play it. The European stance is that such people’s votes count. Prisoners, (not as individuals, some of whom this won’t apply to, but as a group), are essentially defined by having made poor decisions based on either being lied to or not having sufficient common sense to properly interpret data. The idea that the less well informed should be barred from casting a vote runs counter to the European jurisprudence that prisoners should have a vote. It strikes me that whatever else the judgment tells us, it tells us three fundamental things:įirstly, democracy is based on the idea that weight of numbers is a public good in itself, when choosing a way forward in a civilised society. I have a certain sympathy for that position at the moment, suffering as I am from my own lack of a plan. While Corbyn’s media training seems to be having an effect, he still appears to lead an Opposition better able to clamour than to place their own cards firmly on the table. Labour, (then led by a man who refused to bend his knee to our highest authority at the time, and a lifelong opponent of a ‘deterrent’) is demanding more information. Apparently, had they known that a missile, (unarmed and fired to test a new submarine and an entire defence system), had veered towards Florida, they may have voted differently. Amusingly, it turns out that a similar problem occurred when the House voted on the replacement for Trident.
The great challenge that led to the judgment was the suggestion that the ‘people’, having been asked to make a decision, had been insufficiently well informed to cast such a fundamental vote or worse still lied to. One of the difficulties, for me and for those seeking to find solace in the judgment, is that nothing is ever entirely what it seems. Having spent a charmed life surrounded by experts I remain sceptical but hopeful that they will at some point identify themselves. Many kind friends have suggested that I turn to ‘experts’ for help. I have been fortunate enough to have experienced both in my life and a combination of the two in the last month that I had never anticipated could be possible simultaneously. It brings both darkness and, (if one is extremely lucky), moments of extraordinary light. Depression, like ‘Brexit’ is a very difficult concept to pin down.
While I have the greatest respect for our independent judiciary, and while I have yet to read the judgment, it fascinates me to imagine that it could in anyway put the genie back in the bottle.Īs many of you have realised I have been fighting my own demons over the festive period.
The Supreme Court has issued its judgment – 8-3 – in favour of MPs being given the opportunity to vote on triggering Art 50.
0 kommentar(er)
