Below we reprint comments from the Guardian that give an alternative view to the actions of the Tory press, the judgement and our democracy.
Send ALL those that incite riots to jail
“In 2011, following the widespread rioting, arson and looting in a number of English cities, a teenager was jailed for four years, for posting a drunken message on Facebook, calling for a riot in his home town. He had actually deleted it the next morning, when he had sobered up and realised it might be misinterpreted.
Both Theresa May, and papers like the Daily Mail were calling for the harshest penalties to be applied following the riots. But anyone, reading the papers the last few days, will have seen examples of Brexit supporters threatening riots or civil war. This is on top of the threats of murder, and the tabloid press (including the Daily Telegraph) explicitly targeting individuals involved in the court case.
Theresa May should not only be calling out the behaviour of her supporters, online and also in the media industry, but also instructing the police to take firm action against those responsible. If the law applies to stupid drunken teenagers, then it should also apply to newspaper editors. ”
Judges do not subvert democracy
“Nobody is trying to subvert the democratic will of the people. The ruling is not a judgment on the referendum result. Is about how our government act to bring action as a result.
The future of the whole country depends on how we pursue Brexit. It’s vital that this process is conducted with democratic scrutiny and parliamentary involvement.
Huge questions are unanswered by the referendum vote, like “when?” and “on what terms?”. These have been getting decided by our new government, based on their own interpretation of the motivations behind the vote, and projecting their own agenda onto that behind closed doors. They have shared more and consulted more with Nissan than with the public.
This ruling establishes the important role our democratic parliament, giving the public in constituencies across the UK our only representation in this process. It is vital to have this process conducted with full parliamentary involvement, and democratic accountability through our local representatives.
Do you think the ruling means something different? Isn’t it good to have our democratic representatives from all constituencies have a voice in this“
Do you understand our democracy?
“Instead of spouting nonsense may be you should spend a little more time studying the history and the institution of the country. The is no “will of the people” in British politics… in fact the concept itself is absurdly contrary to British political culture, to British history and of centuries of British constitutional precedents.
Parliament is the one who has the legitimate constitutional mandate from the people and it does through elections. So the “British way” is for the will of the people to be embodied in parliament (and that despite the fact that the upper house is completely unelected) and expressed ONLY through parliament. Government has no popular mandate and its authority is in fact derived from the crown, not from the people.
Now, in a weird way British “democracy” is functional and has worked for quite a long time, but any British person who has a minimum of national pride should at the very least be aware that the British system has some very serious constitutional limits and peculiarities. All this winning about a process (courts reaffirming the primacy of parliament) that is in fact very much the proper British way to do things.
Ironically if you wanted a true democracy, where the will of the people is expressed directly and were the executive gets its mandate from the people and not from parliament then you should have emigrated to a different country… In fact most EU countries are much more democratic in that respect than the UK. Even better, the most democratic of them all in that respect is the EU itself.
But you have chosen to live in a constitutional monarchy without a constitution, under a representative (not direct) system where sovereignty officially resides in parliament and only in parliament. A system you are usually mighty proud of and always defend when foreigners tell you how silly and antiquated it is… so why all the crying now. You have had centuries to come up with a proper written constitution with the citizens as the source of political legitimacy… and yet have chosen over the ages not to do so… and now that it is a little inconvenient for one issue, suddenly the whole British system is not to your liking anymore…
What should strike you here is that all this legal issues about the difficulties around the process of Brexit, both domestically and internationally, were explained at length by experts before the vote… and yet apparently no one on the leave side listened…
Everyone else on earth knew that Brexit was going to be legally and constitutionally traumatic, it was explained by specialists over and over again… and now you act as if this should be a surprise? That is the problem with simplistic demagogic campaigning, in the end leavers started believing their own propaganda about how easy and simple and painless and rosy Brexit was going to be. Welcome to reality, it was never going to be easy, simple, painless or rosy… and the fact that you are self deluded is no reason to take your anger out on judges and MP who are only doing the job under the British system.
If you want a system were the executive is not held in check and balances by the legislative and the judicial go live in Russia. “