Front pages of British newspapers after the high court ruling on Friday on parliamentary involvement in the Brexit process. Photograph: Benjamin Fathers/AFP/Getty Images
It has become painfully clear since June’s vote to leave the European Union that Theresa May’s government and its supporters have little or no idea where the country is heading. Lacking a plan or a shared philosophy, they are united by an arbitrary and destructive rush to the exit. Their hysterical reaction to last week’s unanimous high court ruling that Britain cannot quit the EU without parliament’s consent also reveals extraordinary ignorance about where we, as a country, have come from. It is dismaying that those who campaigned so passionately to reclaim British sovereignty appear not to have the first idea about their country’s long-established constitutional arrangements.
It is a fundamental principle of British democracy that parliament is sovereign. Not the government. Not the executive or a self-selecting clique within it. Certainly not this prime minister, who lacks a personal mandate. Sovereign power resides with our elected, representative parliament. This state of affairs did not come about by chance. A power struggle between the crown and its subjects raged almost unceasingly in the centuries following Magna Carta. The proposition that the monarch cannot rule without parliament’s consent lay at the heart of England’s serial 17th-century civil wars. The question was settled by the parliamentarians’ victory at the battle of Worcester in 1651. Parliament’s ascendancy was legally established in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which spawned the landmark Bill of Rights.
George Jeffreys, the infamous lord chief justice of England is caught and beaten by a London mob during the Glorious Revolution, December 1688. Photograph: Edward Gooch/Getty Images
It is also a long-established fact of British constitutional life that the country’s senior judges do not make domestic law. Their independent role is to interpret laws agreed by parliament, say what they mean and how and if they may be legally implemented. When Britain joined what was then the EEC, the European Communities Act, passed by parliament in 1972, incorporated many European laws into domestic law. Thus it is both illogical and ignorant to castigate the high court for doing its job and stating the constitutionally obvious: that having passed the act, only parliament can override it by consenting to activate article 50 of the Lisbon treaty.
Yet castigating the judges and by extension, anybody who has the effrontery to agree with them, is exactly what the hard Tory Brexiters and their accomplices in the lie factories of Fleet Street have resorted to with a venom, vindictiveness and vituperation remarkable even by their standards. The will of the people has been thwarted by an “activist” judiciary. These bewigged, closet Remainers, members of the fabled “well-heeled liberal metropolitan elite”, are “enemies of the people”, they shriek. Some of these sleaze-peddlers even dipped into homophobia, highlighting the sexual orientation of one of the judges. Inexcusable.
The Labour MP Hilary Benn outside the Houses of Parliment on Thursday after the high court ruling. The judgment had nothing to do with defying ‘the will of the people’, he said. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA
This is mendacious bile. It wilfully misunderstands the relationship between parliament, government and the judiciary. Partisanship is understandable, but this level of stupidity is unforgivable. It misleads and distorts – either deliberately or out of ignorance. As Hilary Benn pointed out yesterday, the high court judgment has nothing to do with defying the “will of the people”. As he explained, “the judgment is not to do with the fact that we will be leaving theEuropean Union. It was a ruling on who starts the process, who fires the starting gun and in upholding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty… the judges said that since it was legislation that took us in, it should be parliament that takes the decision to start that process and not the government.”
Or here is Conservative MP and ex-attorney general Dominic Grieve speaking onNewsnight on Friday: “I was horrified at the newspaper coverage, which reminded me of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. The judges did exactly what was asked of them – they highlighted that our constitution does not allow you to overturn statute law by decree.”
The judiciary are at the heart of our commitment to the rule of law and those who question their legitimacy (because they disagree with their view) threaten to undermine a critical institution vital to our democracy. Yesterday, the Bar Council took the extraordinary step of asking the lord chancellor, Liz Truss, to condemn the “serious and unjustified” attacks on senior judges over the Brexit court ruling. Senior judges having to appeal to the lord chancellor to defend them from unjustified attacks, in Britain, in 2016?
Since 23 June, the country has loosed itself from tolerant, civil discourse - on both sides. The world has often looked to Britain as an example of a pluralist, inclusive democracy and a cultured, ordered and civil society. But that is changing. As the world looked at the response of politicians and the popular press to last week’s court judgment, many will have concluded that it had more in common with Sisi’s Egypt or Erdoğan’s Turkey than the Britain they thought they knew. A country that hounds, demonises and implicitly threatens its independent judiciary is one that toys menacingly with the very tenets of democracy.
We noted in these columns some weeks ago that Theresa May, who coined the phrase the “nasty party” to describe the Conservatives some years ago, was threatening to turn Britain into the nasty country. That is increasingly the message being sent across the world. It is also the message being sent to foreigners living here, including long-resident EU nationals now afraid to speak openly for fear of rebuke or worse.
Many more reasonable Brexit supporters have rightly distanced themselves from campaign to demonise the judges responsible for last week’s ruling. But the government’s ill-advised decision to appeal to the supreme court means judges sitting on England’s highest bench, who will consider the matter next month, may now also be subject to overt political pressure and similarly contemptuous, intimidatory invective. In Turkey or Burundi, such tactics by the state and its surrogates might not be considered surprising. But here?
What sort of country is Britain becoming that this sort of menacing behaviour is not only tolerated but implicitly encouraged by senior government ministers who fear, correctly, they are losing the argument? As has been repeated ad nauseam, the issue is not about reversing or somehow sabotaging the referendum result. It is about ensuring proper democratic scrutiny of the government’s negotiating positions, about ascertaining whether its approach advances the national interest rather than sectional, business and City interests. It is about getting the best deal for Britain.
The concerted assault on the judiciary comes in the context of wider institutional vandalism indulged by the hard Tory Brexiters and their international sympathisers and emulators. They would recklessly tear up nearly 45 years of carefully navigated British relationships with our European neighbours. The resulting damage to the economy and living standards is mounting fast.
Gina Miller, the businesswoman at the centre of the high court case, speaks after the judgment on Thursday. Photograph: Johnny Armstead/REX/Shutterstock
Much worse is to come. In America, Donald Trump runs a presidential campaign based on fear, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia, which he claims represents change, not abject regression, and threatens to reject the election outcome if it goes against him. The dire cost of Trumpism to America’s national unity and cohesion is already plain.
Across Europe, iconoclastic extremist and nationalist parties compete to demonstrate who is most intolerant, most hateful and best at scaring people. In France, their vile message may be working as presidential elections approach and the Front National gains ground. But hard Tory Brexiters do not see the link, deny any crossover, cannot understand how their institutional dumpster fire stokes nihilism and chauvinism. They dwell in their Little England bubble, detached from the real world or, as the high court said of their article 50 arguments, “divorced from reality”. Anybody who disturbs their narrative, such as Stephen Phillips, who resigned as a Conservative MP on Friday, is shunned as a blood foe. Nick Clegg, for daring to add his voice to the democratic debate over Brexit, is ridiculed. Will these people who hound reasonable public figures ever understand what a mature democracy involves? Formidable, robust, intelligent and reasoned debate.
As Dominic Grieve said: “Debate helps outcomes, suppressing it destroys it.” Would they rather our public discourse – and hence, public life – be characterised by childish slurs, homophobia, distortions and vicious rhetoric? That is where Britain is being driven by a new hard Brexit elite.
It behoves any sensible, reasonable public figure to recognise that a 52-48 referendum result is one where national cohesiveness matters. And while it delivered a mandate to exit the European Union, it did not give sweeping powers to brush aside challenges on the nature, timing and texture of that exit. There is a lack of reason on both sides of this debate and there is a danger that the public fissures that have opened up since June 23rd become wider still. We all have a responsibility to ensure that does not happen. As Iain Martin says elsewhere on these pages, “Neither set of extremists is representative of, nor has a majority in, parliament or the country. What becomes ever more apparent over Brexit is that there is a need for an alliance between moderate (of which there are many) Leavers and moderate Remainers, those who regret the result on 23 June but accept it.”
The prime minister, Theresa May: ‘She has already shown a talent for wrong-headedness, an unerring instinct for the bad call.’ Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA
The truth is, hard Tory Brexiters are fearful of losing the argument. The truth is there is little confidence that May can keep her head and rein in the irresponsible fantasies of her more wild-eyed colleagues. The truth is, May has already shown a talent for wrong-headedness, an instinct for the bad call, as seen with Hinkley Point, grammar schools, child obesity and Nissan subsidies. She appears unable to grasp the EU’s blunt insistence that access to the single market cannot be divorced from freedom of movement.
The disdain, scepticism and bewilderment of Britain’s EU partners is wounding. At last month’s Brussels summit, her first, May was kept waiting until the early morning before being allowed to deliver a short statement on Brexit. She was listened to in silence. Nobody deigned to respond. On Friday, her calls to Germany’s Angela Merkel and the commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, when she tried to persuade them, implausibly, that her March deadline for article 50 still stood, were embarrassingly brief. Few in Europe now believe Britain’s government has a roadmap.
In such circumstances, it is imperative that parliament, now given its chance – and reminded of its duty – to shape Britain’s future course by the high court, steps up to the mark. For too long, too many MPs who support continued EU membership (a majority overall) have been cowering in silence, fearful that any expression of unease over the Brexit process will be misrepresented as a bid to overturn the referendum result. No one disputes the result of the referendum, or the social, cultural and political tensions that delivered it, but it is right that the manner of our exit are properly scrutinised. That has yet to be decided. And parliament, rightly, has a role to play.
To be worthy of its sovereign status, both Houses of Parliament should now inject themselves into the Brexit process. This means cross-examining ministers and demanding a green paper on the government’s plans. It means proposing alternative strategies. It means amending and, if need be, discarding wrong-headed approaches. And it means the holding of binding votes not only on when article 50 should be triggered but also on the final terms of any eventual exit agreement.
In short, parliament must be ready to exercise veto power over any Brexit deal that does not ultimately serve the national interest – because this government simply cannot be trusted not to deliver serious economic self-harm on the altar of blind ideology. It is a tall order. The growing prospect of an early general election, should May continue to trip, fumble and flop, presents many MPs with an existential dilemma: whether to vote with their conscience and uphold the democratic rights of parliament and their constituents or be pushed and pulled along by a populist tide, propelled by lies. Most Labour MPs, for example, represent constituencies where a majority voted Leave. It is still likely that last week’s ruling proves a pyrrhic victory, by provoking an early election that, with the current dire state of the Labour party, will give May an enhanced majority. Thus, we will have a parliament with fewer teeth and providing less scrutiny or push-back than is required.
Perhaps prodded by the shadow Brexit minister, Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, could be stirred from his lethargic ambivalence over Europe. If the Liberal Democrats andScottish Nationalists add their voice, as Nicola Sturgeon suggests they will, in opposition to any hasty Brexit “plan”, and if the House of Lords finds the courage, as it has in the past, to challenge unwise and overweening executive power, it is possible a sensible path forward acceptable to the country as a whole – and to Europe – can yet be found.
Last week, independent judges courageously stood up for constitutional governance in Britain and, defying the bullies, did their job. Now parliament must follow suit.
"Walsall council is asking residents for their views on its plans to close 15 out of 16 of its local libraries.
The council’s drastic proposals to cut back its libraries, leaving just Walsall Central Library, come as it looks to save £86m by 2020. Cuts are also being proposed to Walsall’s New Art Gallery and other services.
In a statement, the council, a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, said that it had already saved £100m, but that it is now facing four more years of funding reductions in order to rebalance its books. “It’s been well documented that the inward pressures on local government are immense. Continued austerity will mean this authority and many other councils have to reduce what they do, at a time when we are seeing a greater demand for social care services from our ageing, frail population, increasing demands on children’s services and reductions in NHS spending,” said a spokesperson.
“The council fully appreciates that the Art Gallery and libraries are much-loved by those that use them however, like many councils across the country this authority can’t ignore the fact that savings have to be made. This is why we will be consulting with our public on all the budget options. No final decisions have yet been made, nor will they until we have listened to our residents, service users and partners alike to find the best available options for these services.”
The BBC pointed out that when in opposition, council leader Sean Coughlan had said that “under our proposals we will not be closing any libraries”. At the time, just seven libraries had been threatened with closure.
But deputy leader Lee Jeavons told the BBC: “When we looked at that last year, obviously we were in opposition. You don’t get to see the books in opposition in the way that you do when you’re actually in control.”
“When we achieved control back in May along with our Liberal Democrat coalition colleagues, we found out that there was an internal pressure in terms of the budget in social care which was already at that point, in quarter one, £5,000,000 overspent” said Jeavons. “Now, we don’t want to stop looking after old people, so we’ve got to look at ways of making that in-year saving and this is one of the options.”
A petition protesting against the closure of the art gallery and libraries, which says that shutting them down “will destroy the atmosphere of many surrounding communities”, has already been signed by almost 2,500 people.
The proposed closures in Walsall come as libraries across the UK are under threat, with more than 300 closing in the last six years. In a House of Lords debate earlier this month, Big Issue founder Lord Bird called the UK’s public library service “essential”, and asked the government to “supply some emergency relief money to stop local authorities doing this dastardly deed, this process of philistinising our communities”."
The decision to leave the EU has led to a rise in hate crimes, with eastern Europeans targeted. How has this left many of them feeling?
‘Racism is so common these days that we don’t find it shocking any more.’ Photograph: Alastair Grant/AP
Since Britain’s decision to leave the European Union there has been a spike in hate crimes, with much of this negativity directed towards eastern Europeans.
We asked eastern Europeans to talk about how they feel after the referendum. Here are some excerpts from the comments we received, condensed and edited for clarity.
Shannon, 27, graphic designer, London
I hold dual Canadian-Polish citizenship, but grew up in Canada. Because of this, British people think they can talk openly about their dislike for Polish immigrants without knowing I am one.
Before the referendum, people would make jokes about unskilled Polish plumbers. It hurt. I’ve heard horrible stories of how people can be treated here and friends have said that Polish colleagues working in restaurants have been chastised for not being able to speak English properly. They all speak it perfectly.
I believe there’s an image of Poles as plumbers and benefit scroungers, here to steal jobs, but that’s rarely the case – and most give back a lot to Britain.
Will I be allowed to stay long-term? There are so many unanswered questions from the government and much uncertainty lies ahead. But perhaps it’s better to ask, do I want to stay in a country that doesn’t want me?
Thomas, 33, works in a restaurant
I am originally from Poland and I have two bosses where I work. The day after the referendum result, one of them apologised for the misguided people who voted leave, the other one just kept asking cheerfully, “What are you still doing here?”
Tee, 22, paralegal, London
I came here from Russia when I was six. As a child, I experienced racism at school – people telling me to go back to my country and refusing to go near me. But, before the referendum, I had a real sense of patriotism about England. I was on the verge of homelessness a few years ago and people in my local community found me a place to stay and helped me get on benefits. Because of that, I felt very at home here. I wanted to give something back.
However, the referendum result showed me that people don’t really want immigrants here. Nigel Farage’s racist and hateful brand of politics won. I don’t feel connected to Britain any more – I feel disappointed. I look and sound British, so luckily I haven’t experienced any racism. I have British citizenship and I am trying to establish a career here. I don’t want to leave.
A Brexit supporter shouts at pro-Europe marchers during the March for Europe in london, 3 September 2016. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
Alexandra, 25, from Birmingham
Have you ever had that nightmare where you go to school and realise that you’re naked and everyone is staring at you? That’s how I feel now. I haven’t changed, I haven’t done anything differently, yet I feel like I’m constantly being watched, as if someone is just waiting for me to make a wrong move so they can say, “That’s it, you’re out!”
Stripped of the protective layer that the EU offered, I feel exposed and unwelcome, but maybe that was always the case.
It seems that this referendum is being used to legitimise racism, offering people the opportunity to vent their spleen against immigrants. All of a sudden, it has become OK to be a racist because more than half of the country voted leave. In the community where I live, more than 80% of the people voted leave. The lovely elderly neighbour from across the street, the friendly butcher I visit every Saturday, the smiling cashier at my local shop – do they all want me gone? Apparently so, because my neighbour stopped wishing me a “good morning”, the butcher is always busy in the back when I pop around, and the smiling cashier is not smiling back any more.
I didn’t mind the “go back to your country” jokes at the beginning, but hearing about Polish people getting attacked on the streets, Romanian shops being vandalised and hate speech in the media are constant reminders of who I am: an immigrant. And, sooner or later, I could be attacked or verbally abused as well.
I am originally from Romania – and this is embarrassing to admit – but I now avoid speaking in my native tongue whenever I’m outside the house. People stare, sometimes they even sneer or change seats on the train.
Monika, a paralegal from Poland who is now working in Glasgow
Monika, 33, paralegal, Glasgow
My own experience has been fantastic, really positive. I came here from Poland 10 years ago, and Scottish people are fantastic – maybe there’s a different view here compared with England. Most of my friends voted remain. To be honest, most of the time when I speak to people who voted leave, they said it was because of the way the refugee crisis was handled, rather than because of immigration.
Racism is bad in Poland, and everywhere in Europe seems to be the same. Racism is so common these days that we don’t find it shocking anymore. It is bad in England, but Polish people in their own country can be as bad to Ukrainians and Vietnamese refugeespeople who come over. Racist incidents in Poland are really on the rise at the moment.
Tola, 34, a web designer, Essex
I came here because I felt England would appreciate my skills, the fact that I want to learn and use all that to build something positive. After the referendum, I felt I had got it wrong. People on the street suddenly seemed different, and there was no friendly “hello” in the street. However, everything eventually went back to normal. I spoke to my neighbours, who I knew voted to leave, and I told them I understood; this is their homeland and they did what they thought was best. They seemed a bit sorry.
I have a feeling that British people wanted to change something, without fully realising the consequences. My neighbours said they welcome me and my husband here and that the vote was more about other things (for example, the security of borders).
I have experienced one racist incident, however; a parent in school said something rude to the kids about packing their stuff and leaving after the referendum, but the principal and local authorities reacted appropriately, saying that there’s no place for hate crimes in this town.
I have been here for three years. When I moved here with my husband, before the referendum, we had plans to stay, establish a business, apply for permanent residency and citizenship. We still want to do that, but everything will be more complicated now. We hope we’ll be able to comply with all new rules and requirements that a post-EU Britain will have.
Mika, 50, doctor, the Midlands
Most of my patients seem embarrassed about voting leave or cannot really explain why they did it, particularly when I ask why they want me to go back home. The NHS is propped up by many European doctors and it would struggle without us.
I have not seen any examples of abuse or racist behaviour; most people are polite and, if anything, just apologetic. Most patients think I am Swedish and even when I correct them, no one makes any negative comments. I live in a village where 90% voted leave but, as a local, I am not viewed as foreign and life for me has continued as normal.
My partner is British. I have now been here for 12 years and have applied for citizenship just in case there are problems in the future. I have a flat in my home country and could go back to a good job there with no problem. The UK benefits from me being here – it will be their loss if I return home.
Members of the Polish community march through Harlow after the killing of Arkadiusz Józwik, 3 September 2016. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
Bea, 29, works for an NGO, London
My experience of living here is exactly the same after the referendum. Perhaps this is because I live in the capital and work within a truly international team (Spanish, Georgian, Colombian etc). Or perhaps I have just been lucky. It’s hard to deny the statistics showing an increase in hate crime.
I hope the UK will get out of the EU on good terms, and Europe will not punish us for leaving. If I have children in the future, it’ll be a shame if they can’t study and work abroad. I live in Hackney and I love it here. The Victoria Park community is the best; there are many languages and many ethnicities here.
Albi, 68, retired civil servant, London
I was originally born in Czechoslovakia, but have been in the UK for more than 30 years. I still have a slight accent and since Brexit I have been asked aggressively, “When are you leaving this country and going home?”
I fear about my future , even in London. My Yugoslav citizenship is no more (because Yugoslavia doesn’t exist any more), and I have therefore requested the Croatian embassy to consider me for their citizenship, just in case things deteriorate and there are more racist attacks in Britain. Clearly, my UK citizenship will not protect me when I am having my head kicked in on a pavement.
Ella, 30, architect, London
There was tension in the office at the time of the referendum; a couple of my colleagues said that there are too many Polish people here. They said this to my face. I was let go a couple of weeks after that, with my employer saying I didn’t fit the office culture. I now have a new job. I’ve just started my own business and I plan to eventually move it to Warsaw.
Emily, management, London
The EU vote was an eye-opener. Although my husband is British and I have lived here for more than 15 years, working and paying taxes, I felt alienated almost overnight. I felt almost sick on the morning following the referendum.
I felt more welcome when I first arrived here, when Poland wasn’t even in the EU. I used to think of Britain with warmth and gratitude for giving me a new home; now I just see it as a country with a massive amount of small-minded, bigoted people in it, who are totally opposed to foreigners living and working here. At the same time, these people will wave flags and cheer when Mo Farah, an immigrant to the country, wins gold. People shame benefit claimants yet don’t mind paying millions to the monarchy. The class system here has always baffled me, but Brexit only showed how rotten it is in reality.
I live in London, so haven’t experienced xenophobia as such, but my cousin living in Birmingham had dog poo thrown in her garden, and thus decided to move back to Poland. She works for the NHS. Good luck filling those jobs when more people go.
Cat, 41, works at a university
I generally do not speak much in my native eastern European language, but I am very careful now of using it in public, as I am scared of the reaction. At my workplace, people talk about eastern European scroungers and our love for vodka. I don’t comment or get involved, as there has always been a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere towards Europeans where I work.
In general, I am very sad that European solidarity failed and people voted leave. There is enough going on in the world and we don’t need to be turning our backs on each other.
