Back-lash against Judges

It is fairly typical of the tabloid press in the UK, to deliberately misunderstand news and attempt to mislead the public citing 'fury' where none is justified. 

A campaign devoid of logical argument has been launched by the Daily Mail attacking the High Court judges who ruled that Theresa May must consult Parliament before triggering article 50.
The Mail has gone into great detail about the personal backgrounds of the three judges as if their background and experiences have any bearing over a judicial decision. Their article goes as far as to highlight that one of the judges is 'openly gay' as if this were pertinent to the story.

What the Daily Mail must know but fails to mention, is that the courts can only uphold and apply the law as passed down by Parliament itself. Our legislation is formed in parliament by the elected representatives that form our democratic system. However 'democratic' a referendum appears to be, this does not and cannot outweigh the democracy of the Houses of Parliament. The Daily Mail surely knows this, but because it suits their cause to appear 'outraged' at the decision of the courts, it seems to conveniently forget.

Furthermore, the failure of the PM to win the right to single-handedly negotiate BREXIT is no bad thing whether you support the motion or not. The fact remains that Theresa May has not supported BREXIT otherwise there may be an argument to be made. It is not the case that someone who wants to exit the EU is being restricted - this is someone who wanted to REMAIN. In fact. this is the dilemma in a nutshell, there is so little support in Parliament for BREXIT, that democracy itself is called into question and is found wanting.

A democratic system must openly, transparently argue and vote on all considered facts. Our referendum campaigns showed poor judgement of both sides when it came to discussing the relative merits of 'remain' or 'leave'. Outrageous claims, one might say 'lies' were told (by both sides) and allowed to be left on the record as if they had merit. It remains to be seen whether the High Court judgement will be upheld, but the chance to have a proper debate should surely be welcomed.