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.
Germany has long been the prop that held up the economically feeble EU, in which more than helf the 27 members that will remain in the bloc after Britain leaves are economic basket cases (some due only to the strictures of Eurozone membership, others because of the traditional weakness of their national economies,) so with Germany slipping towards the recession we and other well informed blogs and news site have predicted since Merkel’s ‘open doors’ immigration policy allowed a couple of million iliterate, uneducated, unskilled and unemployable immigrants to flood into the country, incresing the bill for welfare services exponentially, problems for Germany’s high – tech manufacturing led economy which needs highly skilled, well educated and adaptable workers and professionals was inevitable.
When we wrote about the early signs of recession in the German economy we were scoffed at, called far – right nut jobs and conspiracy theorists, and inevitably, racists because anyone but a racist would know that a couple of millon unemployable immigrants living on benefits can only boost a high – tech economy.
Today, for all the auusurances by Europhile politicians and bureaucrats that everything in the European Union is on the up and up, Germany is on red alert for recession following the biggest collapse in activity for its mighty industrial sector since the financial crisis. Technically Germany already is in recession, they’re just not willing to admit it.
The eurozone’s bigge,t and most powerful economy relies on exports but its car industry has been punished by a slowing global economy, government policies promoting electric vehichles which nobody want to buy because they are hideously expensive and useless, and the fallout of the trade war between the US and China.
Financial information service IHS Markit’s latest snapshot of Germany’s manufacturing growth – where a score under 50 signals contraction – dipped to 41.4, its worst level since 2009, as demand from non – EU trading partners slumped. There were also worrying signs that the manufacturing slump is spreading to the service sector after firms in that sector experience their first fall in new business since 2014.
Confidence among German businesses is the weakest since 2012, private sector job creation is stalling after six years of growth and companies are eating into backlogs as new orders begin to dry up, the figures showed.
Germany’s economy shrank an overall 0.1pc between April and June. Monday’s dire survey data comes after recent official figures showed a sharp 0.6pc drop in industrial production in July.
Phil Smith, principal economist at IHS Markit, said Germany’s manufacturing data was “simply awful”, with combined readings for services and manufacturers “firmly in contraction territory” and the weakest for almost seven years.
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.
If, after reading our report of how the EU and Italian establishment stitched up the hugely popular leader of League when he called for elections after the collapse of his ruling coalition, and instead, with the backing of the Brussels bureaucracy, installed an unelected coalition to govern and revrse moost of Salvini’s reforms, you had bet against appointed overnment coalition of two politically incompatible parties, you would now he confident of picking up your winnings sooner ratherr than later. coalition between the Five Star Movement and Italy’s Democratic Party would swiftly fall apart might have been on to something.
Tuesday morning after former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi officially quit the Democratic Party to start his own political group. Though Renzi has said he will back PM Giuseppe Conte, investors are clearly worried about the prospects for more political instability.
“I have decided to leave the PD and to build together with others a new house to do politics differently,” Renzi wrote on Facebook.
Former Italian leader Matteo Renzi plunged Italy into political chaos again?
Renzi, who was seen as a centrist reformer when he was elected in 2014, left office in 2016 amid a wave of dysfunction. But since his time in office, the party has shifted further to the left, with many left-recruits loyal to current party leader, Nicolas Zingaretti. Some have long suspected that Renzi might leave the Democrats to start his own more-centrist party.
According to reports in Italian media, about 30 Democratic Party lawmakers might declare their loyalty to Renzi, but he has promised to continue to support the Conte government…for now at least.
There may be more trouble in store for Italy’s Brussels puppet government however, as well as a likely split in the Democratic Party rumours are rife in Rome that a significant number of Movement Five Star assembly members are ready to defect to League, feeling that the leaders of the party have betrayed its Eurosceptic principles and sold out to the EU rather than adhering to the founding principle of reclaiming Italian sovereignty from the wannabe pan – European empire of unelected bureaucrats.
World’s largest oil refinery ablaze after Houthi rebels drone strike (picture: Screen grab from Sky News video )
Following the drone attack by Yemeni rebels on a major Saudi Arabian oil processing plant, The Kremlin’s warned that the loss of production from the stricken plant will destabilise oil prices worldwide. This follows statements by the European Union and the UK condemning the Houthi drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities carried out on Saturday (14 September, 2019).
While President Trump made belligerent noises, guaranteed to provoke the rebels Shia Muslim supporters in Iran , Russian President Vladimir Putin has simply asked to b kept up to date on developments in the wake of two drone attacks on the major Saudi energy facilities. Russia believes such incidents will not contribute to the stabilisation of the global energy market, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. It is safe to assume Russia’s leaders see the incident as an opportunity to benefit from higher crude oil prices.
“The drone attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure are an alarming event for the oil markets…Of course, such turbulence does not contribute to the stabilisation of the energy market,” Peskov said.
According to Peskov, the Saudi side has not appealed to Russia for assistance in the wake of the attacks, and probably has the necessary capacity to deal with the disruption on their own. “We don’t know whether they need help, but it’s unlikely. They have all the necessary capabilities themselves,” he said.
Peskov said the Kremlin “strongly condemned” Saturday’s incident, if it could be confirmed that the Saudi Aramco facilities were attacked by drones. (He would say that, wouldn’t he?)
EU, UK, France Condemn Attacks
Earlier on Sunday morning, the European Union’s foreign policy office issued a statement condemning the drone attacks, which, the statement read, posed a “real threat” of escalation of the Saudi – Yemeni conflict into full scale war between two regional powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and adding that “at a time when tensions in the region are running high, this attack undermines ongoing work at de-escalation and dialogue.” Brussels stands in solidarity with Saudi authorities and the Saudi people, the statement noted.
Following yesterday’s attack by drones on two ARAMCO oil facilities in Saudi Ar
abia, it is important to clearly establish the facts and determine responsibility for this deplorable attack. 🇪🇺 EU repeats its call for maximum restraint and de-escalation 👇 https://t.co/kOIzhlYFGF
The UK Foreign Office also condemned the attack in diplomatic terms although certain people in The Treasury must have been rubbing their hands with glee as it becomes economically viable to reopen many North Sea rigs if Brent Crude goes above $80. China too would not be disappointed as Saudi Arabia is a long term ally of the USA, while the smaller oil producers most likely to benefit from the Saudi outage are more friendly to The People’s Republic in its bid to establish the petroyuan as a rival to the Petrodollar for cross border oil trades.
We have reported many times on the merciless bombing of the impoverished Shia Muslim state of Yemen. The conflict started when rebels tried to depose the Saudi – friendly regime and spawned a huge humanitarian crisis which was barely reported in mainstream media, as Saudi air strikes targeted roads, water supplies, sewage systems, hospitals and ports.
Predictably, news of the attack drove financial and commodity traders traders into a collective panic as global markets reopened after the weekend break, with with commodity traders desperately trying to calculate what the upper limit per barrel of oil prices would be (the previous record of $1.09 might hold when markets realise that while Saudi Arabia is still the world’s second biggest producer it is not as dominant as it once was, having been passed by the USA in 2018, and if the Kingdom and Iran decide to neutralise each other, Russia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, the nations of the Caspian region, Nigeria , Mexico and a host od smaller oil producing nations will be happy to pump more once higher prices make production economically viable. When brent (the highest grade of crude,) reopened for trading in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack on the “world’s most important oil processing plant“, the price immediately exploded to around 20% higher than at close of business on Friday, to a high of $71.95 from the Friday $60.22 close, its biggest jump since 1988.
The hit to stability of supplies will exceed the loss of Iranian oil output in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy. It will also be worse than the loss of Iraqi and Kuwaiti production in 1990 when Saddam Hussein decided to annex Kuwait and add it to his empire and saw most of the oil infrastructure of both nations destroyed in the ensuing war.
News that the Saudi outage could last for months, rather that the weeks initially predicted suggest this could be just the start. Even if there are no more attacks on Saudi facilities or retaliation by the Saudis on Iran, the supply problem will not be be clear right away. The Saudis can still deliver from reserves for a few weeks but if the outage runs to months as industry sources are now predicting, we can expect crude prices to keep rising until there is relable evidence that output will be restored.
Libya, Syria, Yemen: Sectarian conflict threatens entire Middle East
Libya, Syria, Yemen: Sectarian conflict threatens entire Middle East
It’s Time to End The West’s Role in ‘Worst Humanitarian Crisis on the Planet’
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.