“They (the justices) have simply restored on a legal basis constitutionall principles that where previously a matter of political convention…it’s the job of the supreme court to determine what the constitutional rules are?”
– Lord Jonathan Sumption
The Justices have converted “Political Convention” into precedent law. They have given themselves the power/authority to intervene in future issues between parliamentarians and the executive branch of the state.
Their reasoning was the “extreme effect” of the prorogation. The justification was the effect of the government’s actions after the fact?
Have they now created a new principle? An act can be ruled ‘”unlawful” it it creates an “extreme effect” on society or statist mechanisms.
Here is the pretense of the Justices. Their ruling was a political choice, with political effects/ramifications. All 11 Justices were well aware of which side of the political divide their ruling would impact.
Lady Hale in her reading of their decision could have clearly stated their increased supervisory powers over the executive branch of the state. Why? It was televised for public consumption, hence clarity and brevity are important for easy comprehension of their reasoning and ruling.
No obfuscation. A direct, overt statement of their increased powers to intervene!
Prof [Sir] John Curtice provides a nugget of insight into the Conservative (blue) gang’s predicament.
On the result:
“so I think the honest truth is that neither side can claim on the base of these results that voters have sent a clear signal… extreme options of leaving without a deal and having a second referendum as the polls are suggesting two most popular options”
On Conservative Party options:
“brexit vote is not going to disappear unless and until the Conservatives deliver brexit …next Tory Prime Minister is probably going to have to try to work out a way of delivering brexit within the arithmetic of the current House of Commons because the option of going to the country …was unlikely to look very attractive”
In others words the blue gang will be decimated if they dare initiate a general election before Brexit is resolved! The blue gang members therefore have two options capitulate to the EU and a lookalike May deal or go for the “hard/WTO” Brexit!
What will it be? In, out, half out, half in? And you shake it all about , you do the hokey pokey, you turn yourself around that’s what we’re all about. Forgive my humour, I could not resist it.
I came across one of Jason Hunter’s youtube videos. It did challenge my ideas on a no deal Brexit. I was initially keen to delve deeper into what he had to say but this particular talk on youtube showed clearly what we a dealing with: A psychopathic, smug, hypocritical EUphile.
Firstly, Jason does point out factually the pitiful inadequacy of the Rt Hon Theresa May’s cabinet and the civil service regarding Brexit. On this I have to agree with him.
The facts or allusions to them cannot be denied. There are hundreds of treaties which must be recreated. Jason mentions 750.
Jason Hunter makes no pretense at being impartial, neither do I. He wants the referendum result revoked due to fraud by leave campaigners. He even throws in Russian collusion via social media bots.
What nonsense. Any criticism of the west is classed as Russian collusion. Are the Russians persecuting Lyn Thyer or David Noakes for making GcMaf or mandating vaccines?
Back to this hypocrite, Jason Hunter. Let us use his own words to expose his motivations and psychopathy or not:
Let us contrast two statements Jason makes in this video. Concern for people losing their jobs, incomes.
“jobs, is jobs, is jobs, its not, its households. It’s people. Real people lives, real people incomes, real peoples mortgage payments, that’s what we’re talking about”
Versus, what he did for a large steel company
“For several years, I was head of strategic planning for a very large steel company and we’d pick another country’s industry, say an automotive and we want to sell them flat steel…
once we’ve destroyed that competitor, we have that market all to ourselves for the next 5, 10, 15 years…”
He was not concerned about “people’s” jobs or incomes when his steel employer destroyed their competitor however due to Brexit he is concerned for destroyed jobs and companies.
He accepts capital’s exploitative predation and psychopathy when they(he) is the predator but not when he or the UK are victims of that same predation.
“The EU are pulling their hair out, we’ve got back channels over there, we talk to them regularly”
“We’ve talked with some of the leading drug manufacturers here in the UK, we talked with GlaxoSmithKline, talked to AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson…the big four if you like and they consult with the government”
– GlaxoSmithKline (make Cervarix HPV vaccine)
– AstraZeneca UK (make Fluenz Tetra flu vaccine)
– Johnson & Johnson (researching HIV/Ebola vaccines)
He has back-channels to the EU that openly disclose confidential activity between UK government ministers and the EU. It clearly show a strange level of intimacy to my mind. From what I gather, he has negotiated “trade deals” for companies NOT nation-states, so why does he have this degree of intimate access to Brussels and pharma?
The real deceit by this man, as he positions it as a rational choice, is to “pause” Brexit by revoking Article 50! I say it is a deceit because he must know once Brexit is stopped by revoking the divorce document (article 50), the political will for Brexit evaporates. Neither party will ever initiate the Brexit process ever again!. Real Brexiteers are in the minority in parlimanent.
Jason Hunter is still worth listening to for a dose of Brexit reality. However are his views consistent with someone truly concerned for liberty, “democracy”, or rejection of capital’s priests/oligarchs and their psychopathy?
“We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”
– Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention,Irish Times, 2-6-2004
“In Europe one needs to act ‘as if’ – as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if States were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty … The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge”
– Giuliano Amato, Italian Prime Minister and later Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13-7-2000
“The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration, and who see national parliaments and governments as an obstacle … Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level … None of the existing policies were questioned … Consensus was achieved among those who were deemed to matter and those deemed to matter made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the final agreement.”
– Gisela Stuart MP, British Labour Party representative on the EU Convention and member of its Praesidium which drafted the Constitution, The Making of Europe’s Constitution, Fabian Society, London, 2003
“Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our time.”
Our generation might struggle to comprehend how Ford, IBM, Coca-cola, IG Farben, Standard Oil and other companies traded with the Nazis. We can see an inkling of their motivations or reasoning in the remainer argument when they prioritize their paycheck/jobs/investments over the principle of individual and national sovereignty.
Which is better, a well-paid corporatist slave/lackey or a freer albeit “financially” poorer individual?.
That is the crux of the reason to leave the EU. Liberty vs Statistism/corporatism!
439 UK MPs voted to change the day we leave the EU from 11pm 29th March 2019 to 12 April or 22 May 2019.
The Amendment also passed the Lords. We now have alignment between EU Decree (EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/476) and local UK law.
The “Right Honourable” (sic inversion) Theresa May has offered to resign after she has passed her deal. Let me rephrase that, she has offered to leave after forever binding the UK as a vassal state to the United States of Europe. Other bloggers on this platform have posted material on the origins of the EU. A link had the following appropriate excerpt:
The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.
It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.
I see commonality in this behaviour with the vaccine debate and zionism. Suppress debate until the end goal is inescapable.
The most rational course of action if these “honourable” parliamentarians were being true to the “democratic principles” would be to go for a No Deal Brexit, to test public support for the inflicted pain that maybe a consequence.
The procrastination, delays, political, legal, rhetorical maneuvers to avoid the result of the referendum have been revealing.
If the result had gone in favour of the EU (remaining within it), we would have seen a swift and timely conclusion to this affair.
These proceedings have been a litmus test for every UK Member of Parliament. We have seen Europhile MPs – informed, willing or ignorant – of all genders, races and regions (England, Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland).
It is a repugnant sight, to see the sophistry needed to refute the will of 17.4M people, who desired a break from the European Union.
We can forgive the ignorant MPs, they can be classed as incompetent. They supported the EU without understanding its true nature and desired end goal.
Our enmity must be focused on those informed and aware MPs, Ministers, civil servants and media personnel that engaged in the required deceits in support of the EU project. Once ignorance is ruled out, we have only “guilty mind”. Willing accomplices, willing betrayal!
We have their voting records and their public rhetoric. Will this be the tipping point for a reckoning of the pretentious political class?
The UK will boost its defensive capabilities by hosting a major international military exercise for two weeks from 30 March 2019.
More than 10,000 military personnel, 35 warships, 5 submarines and 59 aircraft and helicopters from 13 countries will take part in Exercise Joint Warrior until 11 April.
The aim of Joint Warrior is to allow the UK’s Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and their allies to conduct joint operations involving different forces and units and against a range of current and future threats
There following nations are taking part in Exercise Joint Warrior: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK and the US.
“On operation yellowhammer, which is the emergency planning for a no-deal Brexit, it is beyond comprehension that any Prime Minister could knowingly allow the country to be eight days—about 200 hours—away from the possibility of crashing out of the European Union without a deal and to require that emergency planning work to be done”
The question I have is: Why commit 10,000 troops during a key period of political change?
We should be leaving the EU at 11pm on Friday 29th and yet we have 10,000 troops in an exercise (cover) from 30th March to 11th April (two weeks)! As UK column pointed out, best to have foreign troops if you need to forcefully crack down on UK populace.
Would you want foreign troops diverting military resources during your contingency planning? Incompetence, over-confidence or worst case planning for unrest?
The red boxes in the image above show the path to the default/pending outcome: No Deal. They have already rejected WA&PD!
…if the UK is still in the EU (or has BRINO) after 29th March. In that circumstance, the DUP might depart, if they had not already and the Government would either fall or require a new Prime Minister who had not supported the WA …If the Government brings back the same deal without an exit to the backstop, it will be defeated. If it is defeated, there will be no second referendum or prolonged stay in the EU. The UK will leave. In short, don’t panic: if MPs hold their nerve, we are leaving the EU on 29th March without a permanent backstop.
Note: The ongoing military unification is not addressed by this article or MSM. You could argue that there was a certain expectation that the political class would deliver REMAIN or BRINO (Brexit In Name Only)!