• PARLIAMENT is doing its best to reverse the People’s Vote of 2016. In November last year the Opposition resorted to a little-known device, the humble address: a request to the monarch to produce certain documents. No lack of ambition or humility. The last time this was used was before Disraeli was in Downing Street.

The request was declin­ed and the Opposit­ion permitted by the Speaker to call a vote to decide if the govern­ment was in contempt of Parliament. The first time in history this has happened. Why are these votes being sanctioned? Why is the Speaker so accommodating when the real contempt of Parliament was com­mitted by MPs who voted for Article 50 and now seek to reverse it?

Those who brought about this state of affairs should be careful what they wish for. They aspire to office and, if successful, their present actions might find them unable to request advice without risk that such advice would be put, in full, into the public domain or contempt proceedings could follow. When you need states­men you get smart alecks, poltroons and clever dickery.

In truth, this has nothing to do with Brexit but everything about putting on a show. Responsible parliamentarians would have sought to protect the convention that the advice given by the Attorney General is privileged but adapt to the present situation. Responsible people could have sought a meeting of the PM, Speaker, leader of the Opposition, Cabinet Secretary and Attorney General and agree that, in this case of peculiar national importance and without setting a precedent for the future, the advice would be published in full.

Speaker Bercow has stated: “If we are guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures will ever change.” In fact, preced­ent was not the only thing “guiding” the Speaker. He was guided by his clerk. So will Labour move for a motion of con­tempt in the Speaker unless he publishes the full legal advice given to him?

It is hard to imagine the horror these words must have brought to lawyers who sit as MPs, including Keir Starmer and Dom­inic Grieve. Both voted for Article 50 to be trig­gered and must now be concerned by the pros­pect of the Brexit they voted for being frustrated.

Precedent seeks to provide certainty. It is the wisdom of years and adapts to accommodate change, crucially, by non-violent means. It is changed by people who are fully aware of the steps they are taking and fully explain the reason for so doing. In law there is a procedure for appeal. Precedent should never be changed arbitrarily, on impulse, and especially not against expert advice.

If precedent can be overruled in cavalier fashion the entire principle of precedent falls. Even the most fervent Remain­er does not want to defeat Brexit by this way.

STEPHEN SOUTHAM
Mildmay Grove North, N1