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.
Deal or No-Deal, when it comes to Brexit, the euro is toast. Markets, however, believe the fantasy of its survival. As we approach the end of July the euro clings to support at $1.11, mere pips away from a technical breakdown.
That breakdown will trigger a wave of asset liquidation and another round of negative headlines emanating from troubled German banks.
With 10 Downing St. now saying No-Deal is acceptable, the hard line negotiating tactics of the European Union have hit a rocky shore.
Because it looks like Boris Johnson is ready to give as good as he gets.
I’ve been saying this for a long time. The EU is not a tough nut to crack. They have no leverage in these Brexit negotiations.
posted by Phil. T Looker, 22 July 2019
Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis claimed the reason why the euro is valued so highly compared to the pound or US dollar is because of a “delicious paradox” which sees the Eurozone actually being on the verge of a dramatic break-up, newly-resurfaced footage reveals.
Despite the uncertainty [surounding Brexit], the euro has largely remained strong since the 2016 referendum but, according to former Greek Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, there is a shocking reason why this has occurred.
Mr Varoufakis called it a “delicious paradox”.
In a 2018 debate at the Oxford Union, the Greek minister explained: “Why do the money markets value the euro so highly compared to the pound, the American dollar?
“Suppose you are a Singaporean, Chinese, American or even a German investor, and for some reason, you agree with me that the fragmentation of the Eurozone is at an advanced stage, and the euro has never been weaker or more problematic.
“Should you sell your euros?
“No, let me share a secret with you. You should shift your euros to a German bank account.”
Mr Varoufakis explained that if the Eurozone breaks up and all the countries revert to their pre-euro currencies, euros held in German bank accounts will be re-denominated into Deutschmarks, which will be stronger than any other European currencies because of the country’s “huge account surplus”.
Europe Prepares To Join The Currency War
The Daily Stirrer
Will Italy’s Mini – Bot Break The Eurozone?
Brexit news: Yanis Varoufakis warns European Union ‘DISINTEGRATION’ is coming
Merkel Reveals Real EU Plan For Europe
Figures provided in the response reveal that a total of 310 applications for discretionary leave to remain were rejected by The Home Offie, along with 65 asylum claims, at around the same time as the government was embroiled in the infamous Windrush scandal. That episode of unjust treatmeny of people brought to the UK as children without going through the correct procedure led to a series of embarrassing reversals for the UK government on their “hostile environment” policies.
The FOI response from the UK Home Office reveals that Theresa May’s government approved only 16 out of 326 applications to remain in Britain made by children officially recognized as modern slavery victims. The immigration status afforded to those on ‘discretionary leave to remain’ gives people a right to a temporary stay in the UK if they have been the victim of extreme hardship.
The case of a Vietnamese child who, according to her foster father, had been the victim of gang-rape by her traffickers, is highlighted in BuzzFeed’s report. The girl had her asylum claims rejected, having fled Vietnam as a 16-year old, and was told she would be sent back to the country of her traffickers, just days after her 18th birthday.
Another case not featured in the Buzzfeed report but featured by this website a few years ago concerned a Romanian teenager who was sold to a trafficking gang by her alcoholic father. Having been repeatedly raped by her ‘owners’ to prepare her for a career as a sex worker she ended up in a massage parlour in the northern city of Leeds, where she was forced to serve up to twenty ‘customers’ a day but saw none of the money her activities earned.
On being rescued in a police operation, she was returned to Romania as an illegal immigrant, where she was returned to her father who, predictably, sold her to the traffickers again. Her story came to light when she was liberated for a second time. That time she was allowed to stay.
The people who campaign so emotively for open borders simply do not understand the realities of life in third world countries or even in the poorer communities of Europe and North America. Human rights are an unaffordable luxury for this who live at the margins of society, and while calls from the likes of Alexandria Occasio Cortez or Owen Jones to open our borders to the world’s poor, it is not a few thousand we are talking about but billions.
Scale of Modern Slavery in Britain Revealed in Shocking Report
Pregnant Victims of Modern Slavery left ‘Isolated’ in London
Big Brands, Big Meetings, Big Summits, but Modern Slavery Still Problem for UK
Slavery Was Evil When Used By Capitalists 200 years Ago But Lefties Are Happy To benefit From It Now
While the media was busy covering the temper tantrums of London’s anti-Trump, pro-refugees, terrorist – loving Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Kahn, and the antics of the far left, who once again, flew their childish balloon of our president wearing a diaper over London, a massive gathering of pro-Trump supporters were gathered in Trafalgar Square.
The enthusiastic crowd were showing their support for President Trump in a very visible way. It made those left wing commentators who have been speaking, writing and tweeting as if everybody in Britain agreed with them look foolish.
With their chants of “We love Trump! We love Trump!” the pro-President Trump crowd sent clear message to President Trump, “The great deplorables of the United Kingdom love you, we are with you, we stand with you, and we want you to succeed. Forget about the establishment. Forget about the detractors and the fake news media.
The real people out here in the United Kingdom—We love you, Mr. President!”
Coming only a day after hundreds of thousands in Britain marched in protest of President Trump, supporters of the president and his unorthodox brand of statesmanship gathering for their own demonstration, was, perhaps, a way of making a very British gesture in the direction of far left hate – mongers like London Mayor sadiq Khan and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whose provocative statements about Trump’s state visit were intended to cause division and incite fury in far left extremists. Whatever Mr. Trump may have don’e to anger the loony left, no matter how many pussies he may (or may not,) have grabbed, we should remember Khan#s links with the terroist Muslim Brotherhood organisation and that Corbyn’s criticisms of Trump’s human rights record are hypocritical when he has for decades sung the praises of Marxist tyrants whose human rights abuses have been among the worst in the modern era.
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Whitehall, the rather grand London avenue that includes runs from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square and The Palace of Westminster, in which many British government departments have their headquarters. Hundreds of signs that read “Britain Loves Trump” and “Free Tommy Robinson” could be seen among flags that double as nativist symbols—Union Jacks, the red and white English flag, and American flags.
While anti – Trump protests were given blanket coverage in UK media and particularly by the left wing, taxpayer – funded state broadcaster, The BBC, the pro – Trump rallies were completely ignored. The numbers at anti – Trump rallies were greater, but that is no excuse for not reporting the rallies of Trump supporters, which were attended by significant numbers. The political bias displayed is on a par with the media’s completely unbalanced reporting of the Brexit crisis, which would lead a stanger to our shores to believe that only senile, ignorant, uneducated, xenophobic, white, heterosexual, working class bigots supported leaving the EU. In fact, where most leave voters can offer a coherent case for their voting leave, the university brainwashed sheeple who take to Twitter and other social media sites to decry Brexit supporters can only resort to calling them racist, fascist bigots (they can’t remember all the big words I used above.)
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who s>uccessfully lobbied for a referendum on Britain’s future in the EU and then led the Leave campaign to a surprising (but only to the political establishment and mainstream media,) victory launched his new Brexit Party this week to get MEPs elected in May now it appears certain that Mrs May’s desperate efforts to overturn the result of the democratic vote have partially succeeded by gaining a delay in the date we actually leave. However, Mrs May is even more desperate to avoid Mr Farage and his party gaining a majority of UK seats in the European Parliament and to do that she has ordered her negotiators work through Easter in a bid to cobble together a dodgy deal with Jeremy Corbyn’s far left Labour Party to get her thrice rejected ‘brexit-in-name-only” deal accepted by the House of Commons before the new 22 May deadline.
Mrs May cannot do that without Labour’s support and has infuriated her own party by betraying manifesto pledges to offer the left wing extremists of Labour sweetners that will win their support. Funny thing about the name May, it rhymes with betray.
A Downing Street source told The Sunday Mirror: “These talks have been constructive and serious and both sides want to see further progress over the Easter recess. If we can keep up the pace of negotiations, we can get a deal over the line and avoid having European elections.”
Mr Farage is dead set on winning more seats than May and Corbyn’s parties in the European Parliament election. Writing in the Sunday Express today he said: “As time has gone on, this arrogant elite has stuck two fingers up at their own manifestos, lied to the electorate, and done everything possible to thwart the result.
“They have concocted and confected all sorts of bogus arguments to try to kill Brexit. The sheer scale of their betrayal of the country is difficult to grasp.”
He has called upon people to stop supporting the establishment if they want to see the 2016 referendum result to go through.
He continued: “In light of this, the best option open to Brexiteers is to punish both of the Establishment parties and back The Brexit Party. The Conservatives and Labour have been as bad as each o.ther when it comes to choking off Brexit. In their own ways, both have connived to let down the upstanding citizens of Britain who voted to Leave in 2016“
Mr Farage has urged people to support his party in the upcoming election so that Brexit can be delivered.
MORE ON BREXIT
BBC interviewer Justin Webb lost it with Diane Abbott during an angry exchange over whether another Brexit referendum vote was one of Labour’s “red lines” as negotiations with Theresa May’s ‘Remain at any cost’ negotiating team continue to debate a way forward with members of Jeremy Corbyn’s far – left Labour Party, to try to deliver Britain’s exit from the EU. The senior Labour politician admitted Britain WOULD vote to leave the EU AGAIN given a second referendum.
Abbott refused to say whether Brits having the final say on any Brexit deal was one of the party’d demands in EU brexit talks with the Government. She was pressed by a BBC host. The Labour Party has been engaged in negotiations with the Conservative Government this week after Theresa May reached out to Jeremy Corbyn to try to get Brexit over the line, which sparked fury among many in the Conservative Party. Speaking on BBC’s Today programme, the shadow home secretary was quizzed over whether a second Brexit vote was a “necessity” of the negotiations with the Government, before she admitted Leave would likely win again.
Ms Abbott said: “The Labour Party is united on the fact a People’s Vote is still on the table, that is the conference position.”
Pressed by Webb on whether any agreement with the Government must have a second vote attached to it, Ms Abbott said: “We are not saying anything definitively but we have a position.”
The BBC host snapped back: “Hold on a second, if you had a position you would be saying it definitively wouldn’t you?
“Lots of your support, I imagine quite a lot of people listening now, would be saying, ‘we need another vote and we need Labour, which is overwhelmingly supported actually by people who would like another opportunity to say they want to remain in the EU, we need to have an opportunity to say that’.”
Ms Abbott replied: “People’s Vote was part of the policy package we passed at conference. Of course, you can have different types of People’s Vote, you can have what is called a confirmatory ballot, where you get a deal and you put it back to the people. That’s a standard trade union process, you negotiate a deal, then you bring it back to your members for a vote.
“Or you could have a People’s Vote if you thought it was the only way to stop a no deal Brexit, but the principle of the Labour Party supports some kind of People’s Vote was set out in the policy agreed at conference.”
The BBC host, who was completely wrong to suggest that Labour voters overwhelmingly want a new vote, typically of BBC news department he was looking only at the section of the population domiciled in London while the majority of Labour voters outside London want ‘No Deal’. Webb also demanded Ms. Abbott tell him if the British people having another vote after negotiations was a “red line” for Labour’s negotiators.
Ms Abbott said Labour was a “member led party and the members are being clear on this question of some kind of People’s Vote, so it has to be part of our negotiations with the Government.”
Unofficial sources say the talks between Labour and the government have broken down but both sides insist the discussions will reopen in Monday morning.