Andrew Murrison, Tory MP, Branded 'Stupid' Or 'Liar' For Astounding Article 50 Tweet

'Your lack of expertise is concerning considering your office.'
Andrew Murrison (left) with his dog Molly at the Westminster dog of the year awards in 2009.
Andrew Murrison (left) with his dog Molly at the Westminster dog of the year awards in 2009.
Clive Gee/PA Archive

A Tory MP has prompted disbelief for a tweet questioning the consequences of the High Court ruling on Article 50.

On Saturday, Andrew Murrison implied the decision could affect future general election results.

If Judges can frustrate a referendum outcome, why not the result of a general election that isn't to their liking?

— andrew murrison (@murrisonMP) November 5, 2016

The tweet was met with a damning response from many including writer Owen Jones and actor Stephen Mangan.

@murrisonMP They haven't 'overturned the outcome', you ass, they've ruled that government must talk to Parliament. And you're an MP.

— Neil Bennun (@NeilBennun) November 6, 2016

There are two explanations for this *Member of Parliament*. Either he is stupid or he is a liar. Which is it. https://t.co/LDP9ww0IKI

— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) November 6, 2016

Shocking ignorance and/or deliberate alarmism from an MP @murrisonMP https://t.co/PevzOObSMl

— Stephen Mangan (@StephenMangan) November 6, 2016

The MP for South West Wiltshire was clearly rattled by the response.

Busy blocking Remain trolls - need skin of a rhinoceros in this business but there are limits!

— andrew murrison (@murrisonMP) November 6, 2016

The issue with Murrison’s original tweet is two-fold.

Firstly, the High Court ruling last week to force Theresa May to seek parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50 was not an attempt to change the outcome of the result.

As Gina Miller, the woman who brought the case, told Nigel Farage on Sunday: “We have a representative democracy, which means they have to go in there and debate, that’s what Parliament’s for.

“That’s what you argued for the whole way through, Parliamentary sovereignty.”

Farage replied: “This not about whether Parliament is sovereign, it’s about whether the British people are sovereign. That’s the real argument.”

@murrisonMP so how would the courts do that exactly? Stop spreading such idiotic scaremongering nonsense. You should be ashamed

— Danny Blanchflower (@D_Blanchflower) November 6, 2016

Miller countered: “You should actually be my biggest fan because I’ve just created the legal certainty so that Theresa May can now go ahead, rather than appealing, have the debate and leave.”

Secondly, whereas referendums by law are only advisory (a point conceded by Farage in the same interview), the High Court has no power rule on the result of a general election except in exceptional circumstances.

The only recent example of the High Court intervening in such matters is the case of Phil Woolas who in 2010 was elected Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

. @murrisonMP your lack of expertise regarding constitutional law is concerning considering your office.

— Rhiannon L Cosslett (@rhiannonlucyc) November 6, 2016

After his Lib-Dem opponent, Elwyn Watkins,brought a case against him, he was found to have breached section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by the use of photoshopped campaign leaflets falsely linking Watkins to Muslim extremists.

Aren't you an MP? Shouldn't the basic qualification be a basic grasp of Parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy @murrisonMP

— Peter Jukes (@peterjukes) November 6, 2016

The specially convened election court for the case called for a fresh vote, a decision upheld by the High Court.

.@murrisonMP As a member of our legislature (for my party) should you maybe tweet more carefully about this vital matter? From the judgment: pic.twitter.com/ccWARN18pl

— (((GarethAnderson))) (@GarethJAnderson) November 5, 2016

Murrison did receive some support from fellow Tory Karl McCartney, although this too did not go down well.

.@maughan67 @GarethJAnderson oh u didn't like his view?
Freedom of Speech, eh, remember that before all this (anti)social media?@murrisonMP

— Karl McCartney (@karlmccartney) November 5, 2016

@karlmccartney @GarethJAnderson @murrisonMP What?! So free speech doesn't extend to us being able to say we think his comment was absurd?

— Matt Cordeux (@maughan67) November 5, 2016

.@maughan67 of course you can... but that's not what I said. Thx for demonstrating your inconsistency again. @GarethJAnderson @murrisonMP

— Karl McCartney (@karlmccartney) November 5, 2016

@karlmccartney @maughan67 @GarethJAnderson @murrisonMP He's free to air his idiotic claims, and we're free to point out he's being idiotic.

— Westof銀座 (@AdrLdnTokyo) November 6, 2016
Close

What's Hot