Readers' letters

EU ruling was right decision

Tuesday, 8th November 2016, 4:00 pm
Updated Wednesday, 16th November 2016, 5:16 pm
Claimant Gina Miller at the High Court where judges have ruled against the decision to trigger Article 50 without Parliaments authority

The High Court ruling that the Prime Minister must seek Parliamentary approval before invoking Article 50 has resulted in vile threats being made against the leader of the group that sought a legal ruling, and abuse directed at the judges concerned. Not only is such behaviour despicable, it is an alarming demonstration of ignorance of our constitutional system.

If a country is to function as a genuine liberal democracy, it is essential that the Executive is subject to scrutiny by the Judiciary.

Where this check is absent dictatorship flourishes.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

The delay caused by the ruling may be exasperating but it is worth bearing if we are to enjoy genuine liberty.

The ruling is not ignoring the will of the people.

It is simply stating that the Legislature has the right to examine what is being proposed by the Government. We should heed the words of Edmund Burke: “The greater the Executive power and the more it is left unfettered, the more dangerous the likely abuse.”

Dr Barry Clayton

Address supplied


Result should be accepted

Once again we have the bad losing EU ‘remoaners’ on their remain bandwagon refusing to accept democracy by having a High Court Judge rule that the Government must ask Parliament to vote on when, if ever, Article 50 should be invoked for us to leave the EU – apparently on the grounds put forward by the ‘remoaners’ that the electorate weren’t made aware of the potentially dire economic consequences to this country if we do leave the EU.

The remainers practically bust a gut trying to point out to the electorate the potential consequences to the country if we left the EU during the referendum, this information hardly constitutes any new evidence being presented to the court.

It simply implies that the electorate are too stupid to know what is good for them. The fact is that by Parliament voting in favour of holding the referendum, the legal implication is that Parliament should accept the outcome of the referendum.

Derek Barker

Address supplied


Dangers of distraction

In the last few days alone, we’ve seen three major stories about mobile devices and their potential to distract us.

Research out this week to coincide with our second Accident Awareness Week puts the issue in stark relief. Almost half of UK adults admit they have put themselves in danger because they’ve been distracted whilst walking or driving.

Mobile technology allows us to stay in touch, do business on the move, feed our curiosity, and share the highs and lows of life with those close to us. Technology itself is not the danger.

It’s the hold many allow it to have when we should be utterly focused on a different task.

This time next year we hope our annual survey will demonstrate a downward trend in technology related-distraction.

Technology is going nowhere, so this relies on every one of us being honest with ourselves, and changing the relationship we have to our mobile phones.

If protecting our own safety isn’t enough to convince us, the stories we’ve seen should serve as a reminder of the sometimes devastating impact one moment’s distraction can have on those around us.

Simon Trott,

Managing Director

National Accident Helpline