The verdict of the Supreme Court, that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, NOT for the purpose of stopping pro EU factions from preventing the UK having a no strings break from the EU as a (long overdue) result of the 2016 referendum, and it’s result which surprised the elites and the citizens of our recently renamed capital city Wankeristan, has divided the country even more deeply than the brexit vote itself.
Answers given to this question posed on Quora.com reveal that above all, the pro EU side, while totally opposed to referenda which do not return the result they want, are quite happy with judges who overreach their judicial authority and usurp the lawmaking powers of parliament to their unelected selves, so long as their verdict is the one Remain supporters want.
What does it say about Boris Johnson when 11 senior judges unanimously call his prorogue unlawful and he still says they are wrong?
What does it say about the judiciary when 11 Supreme Court Justices ignore the law because they are determined to stitch up Boris Johnson. Article 9 of the Bill Of Rights (1689) clearly states that “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;”
The Supreme Court Justices, showing that they are corrupt rather than stupid although they may well be both, chose to pretend they believed proroguation was not part of the normal proceedings of parliament. In fact it is a routine process that must be performed in order that one parliamentary session can be ended and another one begun.
You are incorrect. They determined in this case that no reason was given and no reasonable reason could be given for suspending Parliament for five weeks. They are saying the the PM does not have the right to suspend Parliament for no reason or for a length of time not consistent with the reasoning for the suspension.
If this had not been up held the Government could close Parliament indefinitely. That clearly should not be allowed.
I also notice that you are calling these judges corrupt with any evidence.
I have plenty of evidence that the Supreme Justices are corrupt and repeatedly find in favour of certain interest groups, and that the Supreme Court is a politcal device created by Tony Blair to rule on constutional matters he could never hope to get past parliament, and that its members are not the most senior judges in the land but most of it is not relevant to this question, is far too long to summarise meaningfully in a comment and is being fully covered by online news and commentary sites like Unherd and Spiked.
The point people are missing here is that these court cases need not have happened had the combined opposition parties tabled a no confidence motion and brought down the government or supported one of the governments attempts to call an early election. Instead the opposition decided to put their political interests ahead of the national interest and leave us without an effective government rather than face the prospect of losing an election..
The opposition’s problem is while there is no majority in parliament for Leave means Leave, there is also no majority for Leave With Theresa May’s Deal or Remain, and the as long as parliament will not allow Leave With No Deal, the EU will not agree to renegotiate May’s withdrawal agreement.
Most of the comments on the Quora question above and the Supreme Court ruling on the proroguation of parliament (including my own I have to admit,) went with the respondant’s wider position on Brexit, but it is interesting to note that of the answers from people who claimed legal expertise, none mentioned this rather important fact:
The eleven justices all made a single judgment; there was no dissenting opinion, which is odd considering that equally senior judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Master of the Rolls already made a decision which was precisely the opposite of that of the Supreme Court decided.
Now clearly those Remain supporters who claimed that legally the Supreme Court judges are the most senior legal authorities in the land have far less knowledge of the judicial hierarchy than one would expect from legal professionals. Perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court is not an ancient and venerable institution but a recent politically innovation created at the behest of the traitor and war criminal Tony Blair and packed with New Labour political appointees (probably for the purpose of protecting Blair and his cronies from justice should their war crimes and acts of treason ever be prosecuted,) has something to do with it.
It is widely suggested that the whole of the judiciary has a pro – EU bias, ans the Supreme Court Justices are not the first to allow their political prejuduces to overrule their duty of impartiality.
The judge in the Robin Tilbrook case, in which the plaintiff argued that Theresa May had overreached her authority in agreeing an extension to Article 50 without putting it to parliament and therefore the UK had legally left the EU on March 19, 2019, in the words of Tlbrook’s case, ” wilfully deliberately knowingly and intentionally failed to declare his ‘conflicts of interest'” – which by the way mainstream media failed to inform the people about!
The MSM could not report honestly about the judge’s conflict of interest, because they would then have to explain what the case was about. What scant coverage it was given presented Tilbrook, a legal professional, as an obsessive nutcase driven by hatred of the European Union The Establishment are desperate to suppress any mention of the Tilbrook case, which is why there were been a total news blackout about it. If the Tilbrook case was generally known about, then there would be inexorable public pressure for Robin Tilbrook to at least be given a fair hearing. Any fair, impartial court would almost certainly find in Robin Tilbrook’s favour – and we would immediately be out of the EU. Hence the total news blackout.
Judge LJ Hickinbottom ruled Tilbrook’s claim ‘Totally Without Merit’. Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Legal Institute and therefore sworn to promote EU law throughout the ‘Community’ as well as the recipent of many lucrative commissions by virtue of holding that position.
The EU is of course a lawers’ wet dream, the giant bureaucracy produced swathes of new laws every week, most so arcane only an army of lawyers could interptret them in any meaningful way. The practice of Law mis certainly the fastest growing industry in the EU and given the collapse of manufacturing and agriculture due to the burden of bureaucratic law placed on producers might sooon be the largest industry.
Gina Miller. Boris Johnson and The High Court
Having concluded ]it’s three-day hearing in a case that will determine whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was lawful or not the judges, most of who displayed a definite anti – Brexit bias during the proceedings, must now ponder the legal – and not the political implications of the case. Their Lordships should bear in mind, though if the Remain factions wins the argument they will not, that the English ill Of Rights, which became law in 1689, states unequivocally, “That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.”
The decision of the justices is expected early next week. As thus point, it is imposssible to predict a verdict, but should they let their own political prejudices interfere with their oath of impartiality and rule that the suspension was indeed unlawful, that ruling would mean that technically the prorogation actually never happened.
Lord Pannick QC, the lawyer who represents the lead plaintiff, lawyer, millionaire businesswoman and Brazilian totty Gina Miller, told the court that Speaker Bercow should then be entitled to reconvene parliament as early as next week. Furthermore legal pundits who have obviously not familiarised themselves with the quoted clause from the Bill Of Rights are claiming Prime Minister Johnson, who effectively stands accused of lying to the Queen about his motives to suspend parliament, could face jail time. This is bollocks, to refer back to the Bill of Rights , “debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in ANY court.”
Ah yes, but that act was passed 330 years ago, and times have changes the rabid Remainers screech, showing their usual disregard for the law when the law denies them what they want. It was passed 330 years ago, but until it is repealed by act of parliament it stands. And as for Johnson misleading The Queen, that’s bollocks too, we cannot know what was actually said in their exchange because conversations between Monarch and Prime Minister are private and are never discussed publicly but The Monarch has her own legal and constitutional advisers who would not allow her to be conned or bullied into doing anything of uncertain legality
While this would be sensational stuff in normal times, and possibly force the resignation of Mr. Johnson, these are not normal times. The opposition having twice voted down acts proposed by the government to advance Brexit, have on each occasion declined to call a vote of confidence and force an election (because they know they would lose,) and have twice voted down government efforts to call an election, thus leaving the country paralyzed politically in their determination to thwart the democratic will and stop the UK leaving
The Fourth Reich The EU in line with the result of the 2016 referendum. Reports circulating in political circles suggest Boris Johnson’s government is already publicly contemplating whether, should a Remainer alliance in the Supreme Cort and parliament force the recall of parliament, the government might immediately impose a further suspension and thus run down the clock to our default leaving date, October 31st. If you are a Leave supporter there’s no need to Pannick yet, there are a few more constitutional tricks available to Boris and every silly stunt aimed at stopping Brexit ensures that when the inevitable election is held, the defeat of Labour and The Liberal Democrats is completely crushing.
How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU
Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.
The debate over Boris Johnson’s bid to negotiate a Brexit deal within deadlines agreed by his predecessor is going on amid amid a fierce legal battle in the UK Supreme Court that entered a third day on Wednesday. The case is in esssence a bid by the Labour and Liberal Deomcrat parties to usurp power without having to face an election which Labour would surely lose, while political minnows The Liberal Democrats would fall well short of a majority.
Legal challenges to the government argued Johnson suspended the Parliament to silence the MPs over the EU exit, while the prime minister had earlier referred to the move as one scheduled to pave the way for the Queen to deliver a speech on the country’s legal course for the upcoming year. He stressed the prorogation had been given royal consent, with Mr Rees-Mogg, who travelled to Balmoral for the Queen’s approval, hitting back it was “nonsense” to suggest she had been misled over the decision.
One has to believe Rees – Mogg, the Monarch has her own team of legal advisers would would have told herr to withhold the Royal Assent from anything of dodgy legality.
The defence in the Supreme Court on behalf of the UK government is arguing the decision to prorogue Parliament was a political matter and is not in the courts’s jurisdiction.
Earlier in September, Boris Johnson suspended MPs’ work for five weeks (a period which included what would have been a four week break for party conferences, with the parliamentarians not scheduled to return until 14 October after the combined opposition, having voted down government proposals to effect Brexit, twice ducked the opportunity to force an election and voted down government motions to hold an election election, as the debate in the country around a no-deal exit from the EU became exceptionally heated, totally polarising the nation.
Despite having rejected the opportunity to put the dispute to the electorate, MPs voted en masse for a bill that forces the prime minister to delay Brexit until the end of January if there is no agreed trade deal with the EU.
Forget what three Buckfast swilling, deep fried Mars Bar scoffing judges in chilly Jockoland said earlier in the week and whatever you have heard about Boris Johnson lying to the Queen (The Queen’s conversations with her Prime Ministers are confidential so nobody knows if Boris lied to our Betty or not, but if he did and anything he advised was illegal her own advisers would have warned her to withhold assent to the prorogation of parliament.
The Scottish court judgement is nothing but a cheap political stunt by a bunch of biased, SNP supporting bent lawyers aimed at giving The Mad Wee Hag Sturgeon ammunition for her next bid to make Scotland independent from the UK and thus the biggest economic basket case in Europe (if Scotland was an independent nation now they would be further up shit creek and even more bereft of paddles than Greece. .
And Boggart Blog is not the only digital news sheet that thinks so. We may be a scurrilous little blog, but look at what the highly respected, subscrioption only web news site for financial professionals, Eurointelligence has to say:
We expect this to be of more significance to the debate over Scottish independence than to Brexit. Legal commentators, including the retired Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, expect the UK Supreme Court to side with the English ruling rather than the Scottish one.
Advantage Boris who is already one set up because the High Court in England ruled in his favour, as it should, while constitutionally Scottish courts cannot possibly have jurisdiction over the whole of the UK.
If the Supreme Court, as we expect, does not intervene on prorogation, that leaves Hilary Benn’s legislation – requiring Johnson to seek an extension to the Art. 50 withdrawal period – as the main tactical approach left for Remainers.
But Johnson has the possibility of launching a legal challenge to Benns law, if he wants to.
The No No Deal law does nothing if such a challenge is upheld (as it should be), but the government team may have better ideas than issuing a challenge as Eurointelligence reports:
The act has been repeatedly and mistakenly described in the British media as “taking no deal off the table”, which illustrates how few journalists have bothered to even read the plain words of its text. Johnson is required by the act to send a letter to the European Council requesting an extension until 31st January 2020. But the act only requires that he send this letter on October 19. Even then, he only has to send the letter if parliament hasn’t agreed to either a deal or a no-deal exit by that date. Both scenarios being explicitly allowed by the legislation. Moreover, it allows Johnson to withdraw the letter if the House of Commons votes in favour of either a withdrawal agreement or of no-deal exit between 19th October and 31st October.
We think the Remainers committed a strategic error. It was a mistake to leave the machinery of government in Johnson’s hands between now and October 31. He will be the only person in the room negotiating and speaking to other heads of government. It also leaves plenty of avenues at his disposal for frustrating an extension request. However watertight Hillary Benn’s legislation might seem, one thing it cannot do is muzzle the prime minister or limit his right to make political statements, both within the House of Commons and at the European Council in October. It also means Johnson now has five more weeks to dominate the UK media agenda, unimpeded by parliamentary questioning thanks to prorogation.
So in the end whatever Remainers do, short of calling a vote of no confidence and forcing an election, which after their idiotic performance over the past few week the opposition will surely lose, they cannot stop no deal. Quite simply, so long as Boris can string things out until 31 October, no deal is the default legal position. All the Remainers antics and the bigoted Jock judges have achieved is to make anything but no deal almost impossible.
Good work, Remainers.
Pro Brexit protestors outside parliament accuse Remainer MPs of teason (picture RT)
In the wake of a bunch of offal scoffing, Buckie swilling, ginger whinger judges in Chilly Jocko Land declaring Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament illegal (like its anything to do with them,) we have more totally disgusting, anti – democratic shenanigans from rabid remainers in politics and the media today.
The Edinburgh establishment have always taken themselves too seriously of course, they were even delusional enough to believe their little country could be an independent nation. In fact Scotland is such an economic basket case, with only 1/12th of the total UK population it accounts for around half the deficit. And yet three old drunks in an Edinburgh court are upset at suggestions their decision to try and jerk their paymasters strings is politically motivated. Of course it was politically motivated, while most Scottish people are fine, the Edinburgh political set are obsessive haters of all things British, particularly our wealth on which their little country is dependent.
However the Buckie – soaked Jocks have managed to cause some trouble in London as their outlandish and totally unconstitutional ruling has given rabid Remainers in London an opportunity to try again to deny the democratically expressed will of the people.
The ruling has now been used to mount a challenge to the legality of PM Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament in the UK’s top courts. The case is not about the constitution or whether prorogation is legal, (it is, and is the only way to end a parliamentary session,) it is fundamentally about a group of British MPs who are hoping that when they are thrown outr of office by voters disgusted at their self interested behaviour, they can step up to lucrative EU jobs. And they believe that by reversing the result of the 2016 EU referendum they will curry favour with the EU bureaucracy, a Brexit analyst has said.
Alastair Donald, associate director of the Academy of Ideas, believes the court case against Johnson’s prorogation shows that pro-EU MPs who are upset at the prospect of the UK leaving the bloc are desperate to thwart the “democratic decision” of the British people.
Donald is also a contributor for BrexitCentral, an organization that is “unapologetically optimistic” about a post-Brexit Britain. He hit out at the decision made by the Scottish Court of Session on Wednesday that ruled Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful.”
The three judges at Scotland’s highest court in Edinburgh who ruled that the prorogation of parliament on Monday night by Johnson was unconstitutional denied their ruling was politically motivated and claimed that is is unacceptable to suggest judges may be biased. One of the judges, Lord Brodie, told the court that the “tactic to frustrate parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful.”
All three are however known to be sympathetoc to the Srty’s obsessive pursuite of independence. And the pro – independence mob in Edinburgh are as blinkers as the far left loonies of Corbyn’s Labour Party. It is as unlikely that they are as incapable of being unbiased on matters pertaining to the English parliament as tortoise is of of playing a violin.
Johnson should be worried about the ruling although the High Court in England has already ruled the issue is not a matter for the courts but for parliament. This usurpation of parliamentary power should also concern British society at large, Donald insisted, because the “democratic process is being ripped up in front of our eyes.”
<a href="https://originalboggartblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/the-tory-collaborators-working-with-eu-to-stop-brexit-exposed/"The Tory Collaborators Working With EU To Stop Brexit Exposed
Anarchy In The UK — and elsewhere. (An analysis of ANARCHISM: a much misunderstood political philosophy)
Jeremy Corbyn said “When no deal is off the table, once and for all, we should go back to the people in a public vote or a General Election to decide our country’s future.”
Forunately (if you are a Leave supporter,) Corbyn has been seduced by the elite faction of his party led by Sir Kier SStormer, and is following a path that is electoral suicide. Many of the constituencies that voted Leave by the biggest margins in the 2016 referendum were the solid Labour parliamentary seats of the industrial north, midlands and South Wales. These voters feel betrayed by posh boy Corbyn, elitists like SStormer and millionaire lawyers like Emily Thornberry, and rightly so. Labour is no longer “the people’s party,” it is now “the rich people’s party.”
Oh yes, politically correct virtue signalling andglobalists “one world nation” thinking are luxuries the lower paid can ill afford.
Boris Johnson’s only hope of securing a substantial conservtive mjority at the next election, barring an electoral pact with Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, is to purge the democracy hating rebels who were prepared to betray party and country in exchange for a seat on the EU gravy train, starting with that creepy looking little shit Hammond, and get parliament to stop no deal. Labour’s stupidity and obsession with the idea of humiliating Boris have given him what he wants. The Conservatives are now the Leave party, Labour are the party of The Fourth Reich and the Lib Dem’s are paskudniaks, (yay multiculturalism, Yiddish has a wonderful lexicon of profanity, especially if you know whast the words really mean,) and the SNP – well what do we expect from the Scottish National Socialist Party.
At this point Labour thinks that a couple of months of making the PM yield to everything they demand, whilst smearing and maligning him with as much historic dirt as they can find, is somehow going to tarnish Johnson enough for them to win an election. This is a severely deluded strategy. The more they attack Johnson and frustrate Brexit, the more their core voters in those old indistrial areas will support him.
Johnson is just going to keep pushing everyway he can for the no deal and calling Labour out on it. And, with a little help from Farage perhaps, he will win an election and Brexit will happen. In the process, Labour will once again have made themselves unelectable for a generation because they will have shown themselves to be the party of the Oxbridge educated intellectual elite, the party that does not give a flying fuck about the working class.
The reason why Johnson will win, is that from the moment the referendum resukt was announced, a large proportion of the people have been saying ‘they’ (the elite/Parliament/EU) would stop it.
Parliament frustrating Brexit and betraying the democratically expressed will of the people is what people have been expecting will happen for the past three years. And for three years we have had to tolerate endless bullshit from showbiz luvvies, media talking heads, Guardianistas, “experts” and that prepubescent little faygele Owen Jones to get to this position.
And now the people who have stopped it are Labour, the self styled champions of the working class, the working class who voted by a big majority for LEAVE.
The voters are not going to look on them as heros the same way the Guardanistas do. This strategy of let’s call Johnson an idiot and use every constitutional dirty trick to stop him governing (and delivering what the voters want, isn’t ever going to reverse what people think about the betrayal of the Brexit vote. Corbyn and his Labour MPs and minor party allies are not the equivalent of 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, they are much more closely related to the “cheese eating surrender monkeys” of Vichy France.
It is for the people in a public vote or a General Election to decide our country’s future course. Parliament may be sovereign in law making, but parliament serves the people, they are not our masters.
Just when we thought our politicians could not make a bigger mess of Brexit, Labour, The Lib Dems and the Scottish National Socialist Party, having thwarted the government’s attempts to deliver a no deal Brexit, today again ducked the opportunity to vote in favour of calling an early election, (thus making a no deal Brexit more likely as several EU nations say they will veto a request for a further extension.)
So where do we go from here, how do we get out of this constitutional crisis the refusal of more than half our democratically elected representatives to respect a democratic vote has got us into?
Maybe a character from Game Of Thrones has the answer.
The way to solve the Brexit problem (picture: Original Boggart Blog with screen grab from GoT )