Cameron misses key points about the chaos of Brexit

The extract from David Cameron’s book (“Boris owed Britain better”, 16/9) provides a one sided but not necessarily reliable view of the Brexit referendum build-up.

What is not mentioned is the self-interest of the civil service, industry and financial institutions who wanted the status quo. What is also not discussed is the loss of control of the legal system, borders, or the real financial cost of membership of the EU.

The referendum provided the opportunity to vote on what changes might make remaining acceptable, but ended up being a simple stay or go question. This question was answered by the population — the people who were sick of being dictated to by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Graham Pinn, Maroochydore, Qld

George Williams says “the Scottish decision demonstrates a judicial willingness to intervene in political matters” and that “Britain is a parliamentary democracy meaning that parliament and not popular will determines the law and the direction of the nation” (“Judges step into the parliament”, 16/9).

He omits to say that the senior judge in Scotland said the only rational reason for the prorogation for five weeks was to stymie parliament. The decision was based on evidence submitted to the court.

The purpose of judicial review as an exercise of separation of powers is of course to stop politicians and the crown acting unlawfully. If the Scottish decision is affirmed, the Supreme Court will simply have found against unlawful behaviour by the government, which the Scottish court found was intended to prevent or inhibit decisions or scrutiny by politicians in a sitting parliament. This is not the same as taking a political decision.

Commentators have made the mistake of assuming the reverse, which implies the Scottish court was corrupt or incompetent.

Stewart Harvey, Pialba, Qld

While George Williams accurately underscores the depth of turmoil likely to ensue by virtue of judicial interference or intransigence over the prorogation of the British parliament in place at a time when a significant political issue such as Brexit is in critical state of consideration by the same, he undervalues the most consequential element in the whole debate. That is the role of the crown.

The right to suspend parliament is one of the most enduring of the crown’s reserve powers since Oliver Cromwell. Indeed, it was the Queen, exercising this power, who was instrumental in proroguing this parliament, not Boris Johnson.

Just as she was instrumental, through the governor-general in dismissing the Whitlam government in 1975 at a time when the same had parliamentary support.

Should this position be challenged successfully in her own courts of law, the implications are horrendous as the entire foundation of the realm will be shaken to the core with resulting civil unrest far more severe than the one we are witnessing over Brexit.

George Carabelas, Mt Barker, SA

George Williams speaks of “the intolerable stresses put on British institutions by Brexit”. These stresses derive entirely from the determination of the elites, through their parliamentary surrogates, to set at nothing the people’s 2016 verdict.

Within hours of that result, parliamentarians were lining up to declare that the decision could not be allowed to stand. If the British Supreme Court involves itself, it will not have been dragged unwillingly into this affair: it will have waded into a matter that is none of its business.

Whatever the result of this shameful business, at least let us hear no more of this “mother of parliaments” guff: the parliament which has contrived to defy the people’s will is now just a shopworn old courtesan.

Terry Birchley, Bundaberg, Qld

Jennifer Oriel’s argument (9/9) is essentially that because Britain voted in by a narrow margin to leave the EU, that this decision must continue to be recognised and not questioned, and the “will of the people” must be recognised. Governments regularly come to power and overthrow the legislation of the previous government.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that it was a simple majority. If it was run according to rules in Australia, it would never have got up, and Britain would not have this disaster. It is more than three years since the vote, longer than a term of government in Australia.

Andrew Cochrane, Essendon, Vic