Dear Editor,
New British Prime Minister Theresa May declared in October 2016, that she will trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Article 50 gives any member of the European Union (EU) the right to unilaterally exit and sets out the procedures for doing so. The rights of Parliament and long term consequences of a “hard Brexit” landing may not have been taken fully into account.
On November 3, 2016 the High Court of England shot down the claim of Mrs May that she could invoke royal prerogative alone, rather than a decision of Parliament to trigger Article 50. Prime Minister May may have forgotten that it was with the authority of Parliament that the UK signed (December 13, 2007) and ratified (House of Commons, House of Lords and Royal Assent, July 16, 2008) the Lisbon Treaty in the first place.
First, we wish to remind readers to always be vigilant, and that it is very important to separate law and politics. We have argued, in previous letters, for the primacy of the rule of law, warned that some politicians believe that they can act on their ‘policy’ without reference to the Constitution, and pointed to the dangerous tendency in Guyanese society to treat, mistakenly, everything said by and every act of people with political power as ‘political’, when the fact is that this makes it impossible to separate the commands of the constitution and other laws of the country from political behaviour.
This is what Julius Caesar of the ‘Julii’ and later his nephew Augustus did, that ended the Roman Republic and ushered in absolute dictatorship. By first corrupting the Roman Republic from within and by subverting the Senate they triggered the internal weakening of Rome and this led to its eventual specular collapse.
The Brexit Referendum of June 23, 2016 was a political exercise. However, while necessary, it is not a sufficient threshold to invoke royal prerogative only, to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Theresa May is not a monarch without parliamentary restraints. Not even the Queen of the United Kingdom has this kind of power today.
This is not a case against majority rule. Rather, it is fierce opposition to a methodology of governing which pretends that hortatory declarations in a manifesto and political platform, a corresponding policy declaration of a governing political party and an electoral majority, however narrow, are sufficient conditions for an executive to act unilaterally in critical matters of the state, irrespective of the constitution and laws of the country.
Second, it is a triumph of the rule of law over the arrogance of men and women with political power. It slaps down those who would, either out of ignorance of the law or just ignorance, attempt to misuse political power, thereby subverting the sovereignty of Parliament, the representative of the entire population, which should have a say in a critical matter of the state that will affect 100 % of the population. In this regard we lamented many times in our letters, the PNC and after them the PPP’s exclusion of Parliament on the question of the National Industrial Commercial Investments Ltd (NICIL), and therefore one of the most significant economic policies (privatization of 80% of Guyana’s economy) within the past 30 years of Guyana’s post-independence economic history.
The consequences of that exclusion will continue to negatively affect the organization, structure and performance of the economy for many years to come. This is exactly what could happen if the Tories and Nigel Farage’s UKIP are allowed to circumvent the UK Parliament, ignore the wishes, concerns and interests of the Scots, Irish and 48 % of the British people, invoke Article 50 and cause a hard Brexit landing. The very people they claim they are giving voice to will likely include those who will suffer the most from a hard Brexit landing.
Finally, the court ruling is a celebration of the practice of democracy which respects the separation of powers. A truly independent judiciary is a critical device to limit the misuse of the valid political doctrine of majority rule. The value of an independent judiciary is evident in this case and in a democratic society. The court stepped in, reined in runaway executive power and thereby balanced the scales and interests of all constituencies in British society. This is how it should be in all societies. When this happens consistently, civilization will advance in a stable manner and people will be better off as a result.
We invite Guyanese media to encourage discussion of the implications and importance of the rule of law in the affairs of state based on the aforementioned High Court ruling.
Yours faithfully,
Ivor Carryl
