The government lost the (first round?) Of the legal challenge to ensure that parliament is involved in discussions about Brexit preventing Theresa May claiming some divine right to go ahead and trigger Article 50 by executive decree.
The Brexiteers threw a hissy fit. The Mail (Express, Sun and, to a certain extent, the Telegraph) slammed the judges as 'undemocratic' Euro-philes and went on to dig into their private lives as though this was in any way relevant.
The 'Lord Chancellor' Liz Truss excelled herself by producing a pathetically weak tweet - is this how Ministers put out authoritative statements nowadays? - too late, limply reminding us that judges are independent and objective. She probably did not want to upset her leader by showing too much robust support for an independent judiciary that her oath of office required her to uphold.
One lawyer-blogger called for her resignation.
No Minister has had the guts to comment on the vile nature of the article. Challenged on her way to India, Theresa May was content merely to comment on the need for a free press. Free to spread lies then.
TM went on to say that the government would be challenging the ruling and was confident of winning. She would not be derailed from her March timetable.
The question no one seems to be asking is why she is challenging the case. What is wrong with accepting the finding and re-adjusting the timetable? Why risk the inevitable egg on her face if she loses the appeal?
I guess she has already drafted the letter to the EU and was itching to send it off in order to get the Hard Brexiteers off her back and to draw the Ukip members back into the Tory fold before that party found a new leader and perhaps even policies.
'You may have gathered that the British people have (following a campaign of lies and deceit, very stupidly) decided that they would be better off outside the club and so please take this as notice that we will be leaving in two years time, as per Article 50 ... so long, and now we can have our fish back, TMx'
'You may have gathered that the British people have (following a campaign of lies and deceit, very stupidly) decided that they would be better off outside the club and so please take this as notice that we will be leaving in two years time, as per Article 50 ... so long, and now we can have our fish back, TMx'
If the courts think she ought to go through parliament then why not do so? What is the risk? It would look good and there would be a perfectly credible response to the rabid hordes.
'Sorry chums, we wanted parliament to be sovereign and so we had better let them start as they mean to go on.The timetable will have to be put back but we are committed to getting there so let's make sure that poisonous Clegg and his merry men do not back us into the corner they are preparing for us.
'If anyone stands in our way, or massacres our Bill with amendments, then we will simply call a general election and ask the British people to give us some MPs who will do as they are told.'
Putting back the March date might even work to her advantage. A six month delay would get the German and French elections out of the way and still leave her a clear two years before the 2020 election. If she submitted the Article 50 letter at the end of 2017, she would be going to the country in 202o saying 'I have delivered the Brexit you wanted. What a Good Girl am I. Now can I have another five-year term (only this time you will actually get a chance to vote for me)?'
What is wrong with that?
Surely she cannot think she might find herself in 2020 with the UK out of Europe, no credible trade agreements in place, a monumental recession and government debt spiralling even further out of control ... No, surely not.
It all smacks of the control-freak thwarted: a toddler tantrum by someone who likes to have her own way: the dictator who came against the rules.
