As this hearing begins, I really hope our press, media and politicians respect the independence of our judiciary.  Whilst I am sometimes concerned that the adversarial nature of our legal system does not always lead to truth and justice, an independent judiciary is a vital component of our system of government.  Since we have an electoral system that generally gives us a single party majority government, we desperately need an independent legal system to ensure that the government cannot just act in an arbitrary manner.  With such important issues at stake it is important for all of us that the steps taken follow the rule of law.

I not only believe in an independent judiciary but also in a free press.  A quick look at Russia makes me very grateful for the press freedom that we have.  (Although I see our press as being reasonably free from political interference, I am less certain that a press dominated by wealthy owners can truly be considered to be free.)  However, with freedom – just as with power – comes responsibility.  The press have a responsibility to uphold the fundamental building blocks of our system of government – a system, lest we forget, that millions have sacrificed their lives to maintain on our behalf.  Where there is corruption within our institutions then the press should investigate and report.  Would they should not do is to vilify independent judges, whose independence denies them the right of reply, for doing their jobs and interpreting the law.

Reading the BBC News background article to the case, I was intrigued by the suggestion that if the Supreme Court feels that it needs clarification on the meaning of Article 50 in order to decide the case, then it is bound to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.  The more I think about it, the more I think that this would be in everyone’s interest.  Firstly, it would introduce a significant delay before Article 50 could be triggered.  This would give the government more time to try and come up with a coherent plan and give us all the opportunity to think about how we would like our future to be shaped.  Secondly, it seems to me that there is considerable uncertainty about what Article 50 actually means and how it would work.  It would surely be a good thing (for both the UK and the EU) if this was clarified by the European Court of Justice before we try to use it.