Knowing very little about the law (and having little active interest in the details of it), I rarely express opinions on it. However, two current issues in Britain have brought the legal system to my attention:
The Courts and Brexit
The Supreme Court case on whether the approval of the British parliament is required to begin the process of the UK leaving the European Union has recently ended, deciding that Parliament's consent is required.
Many Brexiteers have complained about this case and its outcome, whilst Remainers have deemed these Brexiteers hypocrites: why would the Brexiteers complain about consultation with the two British institutions of the courts and parliament, when the empowerment of these bodies (in relation to European institutions) was used as an argument for Brexit in the first place? I can see that this does indeed seem hypocritical, and in theory this is the correct decision. In practice however, there are reasonable concerns, given that these institutions are believed to be pro-EU and anti-Brexit, with Brexiteers fearing that parliament and the courts seek to undermine and dilute Brexit against the will of the majority who voted for Brexit. Whilst I have faith in the courts' neutrality, it is clear that a majority of MPs favoured continued EU membership- at odds with the majority of voters in the referendum. It would therefore seem that fears of MPs undermining Brexit are justified, though many MPs are announcing (correctly, in my view) that they are willing to put their own views on Brexit aside to respect the democratic decision by a majority to leave the EU.
In any case I take the view that, if Parliament were to undermine Brexit, they would encourage even broader support for the UK Independence Party nationwide in order to uphold the public's decision on Brexit. I am therefore quietly confident that Brexit will be followed through effectively, and that attempts to undermine or delay this process would be self-defeating.
As proponents of the anti-establishment decision, Brexiteers face a great battle- one against many rich and powerful people, from business leaders to politicians, who can wield more influence than many of those who voted Brexit, who seemingly came from the more modest, less influential and activist people (in other words, ordinary, working people) who can't leverage the same resources. Brexit marked an occasion when the often silent majority were given a voice, in many cases reflecting concerns with the pressure on infrastructure and integrating communties that comes with the mass migration the UK has experienced over recent decades. The fact that people from various races (so not exclusively white) voted for Brexit demonstrated that these pressures on housing, healthcare, education, etc are not fantasy issues of ignorant white racists, as many patronising Remainers would say (I've heard several well-helled Remainers lament that Brexit is "so unnecessary"), but genuine concerns that affect many members of the public in densely-populated areas that can't afford to insulate themselves from the problems of an over-stretched infrastructure with private education and healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I by no means begrudge people having wealth and success (it should, of course, be encouraged), but I do object to complacent attitudes and a lack of sympathy when it comes to the problems of the masses that are dismissed as ignorance.
Some people are indeed guilty of ignorance...
The Courts and the Strikes
I have long thought that strikes are morally wrong. I'm sympathetic to workers' demands being listened to and the positive role of trade unions (though there should be appreciation that not all of us work in unionised industries, and are faced with the choice of individual negotiaton with employers or simply having to find another job), but strikes tend to hit the innocent public hardest, and prioritises the interests of one group of people- regardless of the impact it has on others who have done nothing wrong. A clear and current case is with Southern Rail, operating trains from the county of Surrey to London. Commuters using this line have been faced with consistently poor service- partly down to relentless strikes. Some say that strikes should be banned- full stop. However, I don't think that workers' concerns should be dismissed out-of-hand, and a fairer approach would be if the two sides (so in this case, Southern Rail and the trade unions) were obliged to bring their concerns to court, because it is in the national interest that the conflict is resolved, and the courts should be trusted to decide on a fair response based on the arguments of both sides. This would hopefully bring a fair and agreeable outcome quite swiftly and, crucially, avoid drawing the public into a conflict that has nothing to do with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment