“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.
The Queen has via Royal assent signed off previous EU treaties. She will be called on to sign legislation concerning Brexit, like the Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) Withdrawal Agreement.
The question for the Royalists, is at what point does the silence of the Queen and the royal family become a betrayal of the people of the United Kingdom?
Ignorance is not a viable excuse. She has access to the best legal minds, even the current Attorney General, silver tongued liar Geoffrey Cox QC, Rt Hon MP.
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Sidenote: The reader will note the emphasis the Protestant church has on its interests not the people, they are cursory. Nonetheless, it mentions government, to which I would interpret as house of commons and lords. These will be subservient under the EU.
“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?