Scandalum magnatum

A few days ago, the High Court decided that the UK Government was not entitled to trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary discussion -- or at least that was how it has been interpreted. As we have no written constittuion, the courts have some leeway to decide on these matters

Predictably, the Daily Mail led with a large headline portraying the judges as 'Enemies of the People' and used their biographies to add shaming details of their elite backgrounds and, in one case, being a gay ex-Olympic fencer. Equally predictably, luvvies responded with a lot of windy stuff about the independence of the judiciary and the sovereignty of Parliament: both sides accused the other of being hypocritical about sovereignty.Oddly enough, it was the Mail's political correpondent who raised the possibility that judges might well have Establishment political values -- and he was shouted down by the presenter of Newsnight and the opposing speaker, a Labour MP who believes the judiciary are independent! Both seemed shocked that anyone could not see that. Strangely, lots of people remained unconvinced.

Both sides clearly lack any notion of ideology as usual, that would permit BOTH an 'independent' opinion (ie one held without being told to do so by politicians) and a 'biased' one (where something just appears obviously and unconsciously 'right').

Of course,there is a strong suspicion that the victory in the High Court (still subject to appeal in the Supreme Court) was really about a strategy to delay Article 50, in the hope that people will change their mind OR in order to bombard the Government with all sorts of amendments and compromises to achieve the so-called 'soft Brexit' option. Conspiracy seems in the air.

As a result, a secondary worry has emerged for luvvies, based on the treasonous tendencies of the lower orders to question even judges' decisions -- is Britain so divided that it will get really nasty as what we might call a 'legitimation crisis' deepens. This clearly worries the Observer, who has also joined in the chorus saying that the Government must strongly condemn critcisms of the judiciary (a routine statement was not enough) and reassert its constitutional role.