Law Jaw

The high court has, unsurprisingly, come down on the side of the challengers regarding the government's attempt to use the Royal Prerogative to prevent MPs in the Houses of Parliament voting on Brexit.

It did not bode well to have one of the judges point out the obvious.( 'I'm baffled,' Lord Thomas said. 'These rights are under treaty. If amending the treaty, parliamentary approval is needed. So, I don't understand why the content of these rights are not controlled by parliament?' http://uk.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-article-50-court-case-day-3-lord-chief-justice-was-baffled-by-the-uk-governments-key-arguments-2016-10)

 I may wade through the entire judgement at some point. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/ But the bit that sings to me so far is here: https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/794124143369355265

Now of course we have a backlash against the judges  from those who fervently fight for parliamentary sovereignty until it doesn't agree with them.

This is actually a good time to be ill. Viewing all this through a fever almost makes sense of it.