,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
One of the essential questions in the whole mess remains: who has the authority to bring the country together. Today: Supreme Court edition (short thread)
The Supreme Court did everything it could to maximise authority. It spoke with unanimity (who would have thought that?). It stated explicitly that it did not rule on Brexit. 
And indeed, it spoke to a narrow issue that was unusual and not as such related to Brexit. Parliament could well be prorogued by either side in pursuit of their goals. In theory. Parliament had already passed the Benn bill. But still I share @iainmartin1 ‘s concern.
@iainmartin1 This does not mean I think the decision is wrong. I don’t. I also don’t think the Court should have ruled differently out of caution. That’s not the role of the Court. But what I fear is...
@iainmartin1 That we have completed polarisation. Any connection to Brexit, no matter how artificially construed, will poison a topic. No authority, no study, no data allows the return to a real debate. Your position depends on your side of the civil war.
@iainmartin1 If, like me, you have no side in the civil war, others will put you on a side. Depending on the take of the day. If you argue referendums need to have some form of authority you become a leaver, think prorogation is justiciable? Remainer. Read books? Elitist. * Sigh *
