Don’t Pannick, Captain Johnson, Don’t Pannick

ss-composite-image-2019-9-17-9-12_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bqqvzuuqpflyliwib6ntmjwfsvwez_ven7c6bhu2jjnt8
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.”

Picture: Zero Hedge

Lord Pannick QC

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 It was passed 330 years ago, but until it is repealed by act of parliament it stands.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.

MORE on Brexit
BoJo To Go For Election Again On Monday After Chlorinated Corbyn Chickens Out
Don’t Pannick, Captain Johnson, Don’t Pannick

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.

Chloinated Corbyn & Co Are Shafting The Electorate

Boris Johnson and Jeremy corbyn

Boris Johnson calls Jeremy Corbyn a chlorinated chicken after the Labour leader ducks an election. (Picture: Metro )

Let’s face facts; Corbyn and the rest of the Remain crew in Parliament, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem MPs, are trying to shaft the electorate by overturning the result of a democratic vote and preventing us leaving the European Union as it careers towards the long term goal of the bureaucratic dictatorship that runs the organisation, by turning itself into a pan – European empire, effectively a Fourth Reich.

What triggered Johnson’s insult was Corbyn and his party of cowards after voting down the government’s  propsals to prepare for leaving the EU “without a deal,” the Labour leaders then instructed his party to abstain on a vote to dissolve parliament and hold a General Election. Thus Corbyn became the first opposition leader in the history of British politics to refuse the chance to beat the government in an election. Labour also chickened out of calling for a vote of no confidence to force the government to resign.  The far left party’s positions on Brexit and immigration and their decades long flirtation with anti – Semitism and support for Islamic extremist groups has made the party highly unpopular with working class voters in the core constituencies of the industrial areas. While ducking an election which Labour would almost certainly lose is understandable, Boris has actually painted Corbyn into a corner.

Ducking a fight will almost certainly backfire on Labour when the inevitable election is held.

The people of the UK voted in a democratic process to leave the EU (what is known now as No Deal). We have been told ad nauseum by politicians who wanted to keep us in the corrupt, failing organisation known as the European Union, that we did not know what we were voting for. That is blatantly untrue, nobody I have ever heard or seen speaking or writing in support of the EU referred to “only leaving with a deal,” staying in a customs union (and thus continuing to accept EU law as superior to UK law,) or delaying our leaving indefinitely until a solution to the (entirely imaginary,) Irish border question is resolved. Neither did any of those Leave supporters claim leaving would not cause significant economic and social upheaval. But faced with the prospect of leaving or seeing our nation surrender more and more sovereignty to an authoritarian committee of unelected bureaucrats, we felt the possible difficulties were worth enduring.

The only possible area of dispute here is whether or not the people knew that they were voting for no-deal. And they did. Of course they did. We had a leaflet campaign. This adressed what “leave” meant. The leaflet even took the liberty of advising us how to vote. Vote “remain” is what it advised.

On top of that we had the political campaigns. We had the USA’s cocksucker president Barack Obama lecture us on our duty to advance the causees of globalism and neoliberalism. The BBC ensured that we knew what a Leave vote meant: disaster, catastrophe, death , destruction, economic collapse, mass unemployment, a apate of biblical placgues and more television shows fronted by Prof. Brian Cox. And even the prospective horror of the latter did not put us off voting Leave.

Some time ago last year, I predicted that Parliament would attempt to outlaw a no-deal Brexit (known as Hard Brexit at that stage). I predicted that they would hold try to force another referendum offering the choices Remain, leave with a deal or leave with a customs union. and hope voters were too stupid to notice the absence of their original choice of simply voting to leave, from the first referendum. And as has happened so many times when I have forecast a course of events or an outcome only to be called a conspiracy theorist or a crazy right wing extremist I have been proved broadly correct again.

The result of the 2016 referendum was to Leave The European Union This was rebranded as Brexit which was then split into hard and soft. Hard Brexit was rebranded as No Deal. And now an unholy alliance of Socialist, Liberals, Nationalists and Save-the-two-toed-toad cranks have conspired to ensure that what we voted for, simply to LEAVE, no strings attached, is off the menu.

Well the political, academic and media classes couldn’t let that stand could they, after all, as they have never tired of pointing out, the Leave campaign lied to us (they did, so did the Remain campaign, that is the nature of political campaigns. But while the main lie Remainers have fussed about has now been shown in a court of law to have been not a lie but merely a statement that while true lacked clarity, there also seems some confusion on the facts among Remainers. Nobody ever said that all the £350 million (approx) the UK sends to Brussels would go to the National Health Service, merely that some of it would be available to fund the NHS.

In fact the £350 million is a gross amount, so while Remain supporters tried to claim citing that amount was a lie, it was technically true. A significant amounto of that money comes back to us to pay for EU funded projects, but it has more strings attached than a puppet show. Most people who voted Leave were aware of that, most Remain supporters apparently were not.

As evidence that “the people don’t know what they voted for” media commentators like to cite alleged assurances made by the leave campaign that a deal would be easy. I’d like to remind those people that a Withdrawal Agreement and any future “deal” are two separate things. The Withdrawal Agreement should have been easy and would have been had the EU not insisted on imposing many unacceptable conditions on UK negotiators before they would allow negotiations to begin

EU policy is that on a nation triggering Article 50, negotiations would begin. But it also defied its policy in a very subtle but effective manner by demanding first a “divorce” settlement before negotiations could begin.

But again, the withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal. The trade deal cannot be negotiated whilst the UK is an EU member.

Another point which a surprising number of Remainers do not seem aware of: We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the EU until we have left. That’s the policy of the EU. The UK cannot negotiate a trade deal whilst a member of the EU. Seperate thing. The links you’ve sent are about trade deals.

The withdrawal agreement is a whole other topic. The default is No Deal. Very simple. Those who voted, voted for No Deal. This is the default. We cannot negotiate a deal until we’ve left.

The withdrawal agreement is an attempt to smooth over the No Deal process. It’s a bonus. Something the soft – handed pen pushers and back room deal makers have had three years to sort out. In the withdrawal terms and conditions forced on the negotiating team of Theresa May’s government, and which that government did little to resist, the EU inserted a non – negotiable clause that would tie the UK to the Customs Union. unless te UK was prepared to cede Northern Ireland to The Republic. In doing that, the EU would tie the UK to the law that states that it can’t negotiate trade deals whilst a member of the EU.”

So the so – called Withdrawal Agreement is not a Withdrawal Agreement, it is a surrender document and the traitors who signed it were prepared to turn the UK from an equal member of the EU, along with 27 other participating nations, into a vassal state, subject to EU law and political policies but with not input into shaping those laws or policies.

And Remain supporters think that is an acceptable state of affairs, the snivelling little shit – eaters.

MORE ON BREXIT:
Index of Brexit Posts

Macron nightmare as production plummets in France in threat to euro
British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs

EU Supremacy Over British Law To End?

My daily trawl through the best of British blogs threw up this gem of a story on the Guido Fawkes site, which has not been officially confirmed by certainly seems to be true and has been reported by The Times, Times of India, and numerous mainstream and new medis sites. The move will be hugely popular with Conservatives and will do Boris no harm in the eyes of working class voters in the industrial areas who traditionally vote Labour.

Boris Set to End Supremacy of EU Law in Days

Boris has directed Stephen Barclay to sign the official order to end EU law’s supremacy in Britain, a move that Steve Baker described to The Times as “absolutely totemic”, proving Boris is “willing to leave on a fixed date with no question of extension. It’s the do-or-die pledge in black and white”. Just one of the many jobs May never got round to doing…

Whilst MPs voted for the EU Withdrawal Act in 2018, which repealed the original legislation making us members of the EEC, it required a “commencement order” to come into force, which Barclay is expected to sign imminently. Not only does the Government’s move show Boris is totally serious in his Brexit pledge, since it does not involve MPs – by which Guido means Remainers – Parliament cannot interfere with the process. Surprise surprise, Dominic Grieve is not happy. The Tories’ wannabe Remoaner in Chief begrudgingly admitted that he can’t stop the order being signed. He’s reduced to admitting he will have to try to reverse it retrospectively…

 

MORE NEWS at The Daily Stirrer
Greenteeth Digital Publishing

 

Court Overturns Fine Imposed By Biased Electoral Commission On Brexit Supporter.

A large fine imposed by a kangaroo court under the auspices of the UK’s democracy watchdog (allegedly,) The Electoral Commission,  on a young, working-class Brexit campaign organiser, Darren Grimes, has been overturned in the law courts. The case, which many Remain campaigners have used in their efforts to discredit and overturn the result of the 2016 referendum on EU membership.

82031881_darrengrimespic
Darren Grimes (picture source: bbci.co.uk/)

The Electoral Commission is a supposedly impartial watchdog which has been criticised by Brexit supporters and Conservative campaigners for showing political bias both in the referendum and in cases arising from parliamentary and regional elections, is made up exclusively of pro – EU bureaucrats and former politicians. It’s judicial panel hit Grimes with the maximum individual fine of £20,000 although he is a student whose only income apart from his local authority grant is from a part-time job in a shop. His offence, apart from opposing the official narrative that sovereignty is an anachronism and all government power should be handed to supra national bodies made up of unelected bureaucrats, was based on accusations his youth-focused BeLeave group had been used as a conduit for the transfer of funds to the official ‘Vote Leave’ campaign, enabling it to exceed its spending limits.

After a cursory investigation of the allegations, the The Electoral Commission claimed that Grimes had exceeded BeLeave’s spending limits and wrongly reported them. For this he was reported to London’s Politically Correct Thought Police as well as imposing the excessive fine.

Grimes was adamant the judgement was incorrect and launched an appeal financed by crowdfunding, claiming that evidence had been ignored and his punishment was unjust as well as excessive. His legal fund was swelled by many contributions from individuals who supported Brexit. The arrogant elitists of the Electoral Commission went into overdrive in a bid to destroy an ordinary man for having the audacity to challenge them and proceeded to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds in taxpayer cash into railroading the court to uphold its fine and impose further penalties on Grimes .

The watchdog’s high powered legal team were unsuccessful however, with the County Court completely overturning the Electoral Commission’s fine after examining ALL the evidence in the case, concluding the verdict had been based on an extreme interpretation of a trivial human error.

“I am delighted and relieved that the Court has found me innocent,” Daren told the Guido Fawkes political blog after the verdict was announced, saying the case had “taken a huge toll on myself and my family”.

“The Electoral Commission’s case was based on an incorrectly ticked box on an application form – something that it had been aware of for over two years and had not been raised in two previous investigations,” he said.

“Yet the Commission still saw fit to issue an excessive fine and to spend almost half a million in taxpayer cash pursuing me through the courts… Today’s verdict is a victory against the Remain Establishment which has done all it can to try and discredit the biggest electoral victory in this country’s history,” he added.

“The powerful vested interests in this country don’t like the idea of the people taking back control… There has been a well- funded, coordinated campaign against me and those that have stood up to the Remain Establishment. Well today they have lost.”

N.B. had Guido not broken the story we would not have known of it as, predictably, it was totally blanked by mainstream media.

RELATED POSTS:
div align=”center” style=”border:solid; width: 80%; padding-left:2%;height: 600px; overflow: scroll; color: #000080;background: #CCFFCC;border-left: 2px #000080;border-right: 2px #000080;border-top: 2px #000080;border-bottom: 2px #000080;”>

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 claim is in fact true but misleading. If the amount paid into the EU budget is taken, then it is close to £350million a week. Our net contribution (i.e. after the amount paid by the EU to fund various EU supported projects means the net amount we contribute to the EU is somewhat less. However that £350million is not the full story:


Little Donny Tusk The Polish Has-Been Tells Britain How To Vote.

Donald Tusk, who is the President of the European Council and was the centre-right Europhile Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014 made the remarks in support of his former Deputy Prime Minister, Anglo-Pole Jan-Vincent Rostowski who is standing as a Change UK candidate in London for Thursday’s election.

Farage Shredded By Welsh Ministry Of Truth Newsman?
An obscure far – left website https://inktank.fi reported that while campaigning for the European Parliament elections in Wales, Nigel Farage was confronted by a BBC Wales reporter, Arwyn Jones, who asked him a question about Brexit, which you’d expect would be easy to answer: Farage didn’t answer, how could anyone answer such a stupid question posed by an idiotic reporter working for an ogranisation tasked by The Fourth Reich’s ruling bureaucracy in Brussels and their puppets in Westminster with presenting pro – EU propaganda as news …

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his Brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .


There are sheeple who want to remain in the EU at any price, and then there are people who understand the EU

I am not sure people really are up for reading EU related documents or a whole load more people would be less excited about the EU. If people read the chequers plan and the political declaration they would know the only people who leave the EU are the financial sector. Everyone else stays in without a vote or veto for two years whilst we negotiate the long term deal…

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .

Europe

More on France

Latest posts

Stupid Remainer Snobs

In the comment thread on a crisis in the Conservative Party because of Theresa May’s inept handling of the Brexit process I came across this exchange of comments, which I think illustrates perfectly why supporters of Britain’s annexation by The Fourth Reich have behaved so obnoxiously towards those of us who informed ourselves of how the EU works , its long and short term policies and its contempt for democracy shown in responses to previous referendums in member states that have not gone te way the EU demanded. Read the original article HERE
Then look at the articulate and well thought out comment by Sally Bettis and the nasty, mean spirited response from a Remain supporter. 
Sally Bettis

Most of the remainer posts on here are positively dripping with the superior, high minded condescension the referendum winners have largely come to expect from hugely embittered referendum losers unable to stomach democracy unless it agrees with their point of view.

They perfectly exemplify the arrogance of the liberal left establishment and EU Bureaucrat elite – the EU has been failing it’s citizens for decades, all the way back to the hugely misconceived project of monetary union. It’s citizens have legitimate reasons to think the EU has been failing, not just on immigration and monetary union, but on its security policy and its policy towards radical islam to.

Look at the situation in Germany today where Merkel tells us that multiculturalism is going well and we just need to change our attitudes – but look at what the consequences have already been of throwing open the gates and embarking on a process of integration which seems to have almost no chance of success. Look at how unsuccessful Northern Europe was in admitting asylum seekers in the 1990’s on a much smaller scale. The unemployment differential between the native born and foreign born in Northern Europe was enormous even before the latest wave of migrations.

Monetary union has been a disaster for all the reasons most US economists and many of us said it would be (but not most UK economists/’experts’, who said it would be a disaster if we did’t join!).

European Security policy with respect to North Africa and the Middle East has been disaster too.

On the migration issue and radical islam issues the EU leadership has got it fundamentally wrong.

The EU elite’s performance over the last two decades has entirely justified the revolt of provincial UK – that was what we saw with Brexit and if the liberal establishment had spent a little time in provincial communities they would have heard this. Provincial UK said you’re arguing that this is all about GDP – it is not, it is about who governs us being democratically elected and being able to make our own laws and control our own borders.

In the midst of all this there has been an endless post mortem on what Cameron got wrong. What he got wrong was not to call the referendum, but when the EU leadership made a totally pathetic, risible offer to him which essentially meant nothing in terms of immigration control; he should have said “sorry that’s not good enough, I’m going to back Brexit” that was the great mistake of his political career and cost him another 10 years in Downing Street.

Helen Smith

Well cut and pasted. Skills x

Sally Bettis

@Helen Smith All my own work !  Like Brexit you’re going to have to grow a backbone and suck it up !

Ian R Thorpe

@Sally Bettis @Helen Smith Have a little generosity of sprit Sally, you should thank Helen for proving the absolute truth of you opening paragraph. I often get the same kind of responses from Remainers to my reasoned arguments in favour of leaving the EU because … well sombody who supported ‘Leave’ could not possibly be capable of stringing a few words together could they? 🙂
All of which serves to harden my conviction that leaving the EU is the only sane course of action. BTW great comment.

Some Questions And Answers On Brexit From Quora

David Reardon
David Reardon, Political Activst
Edward Browning
Edward Browning, former Retired Local Government Manager

 

 

Most Absurd Brexit Claim Ever: “30-Year Recession, Worse Than 1930s

Ian R Thorpe

Writing in that repository of all left wing and globalist idiocies The Guardian, writer Amelia Hill makes the nonsensical assertion UK cannot simply trade on WTO terms after no-deal Brexit, offering only the opinions of left wing and globalist ‘experts’ in support of her case. Here’s a sample:

The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.

The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU. Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true, Hill claims

“No deal means leaving with nothing, Sir Ivan Rogers former UK Premanent Representative to the the European Institute said in a lecture that the anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 yearseven ardent Brexiteers agree it could be decades.”

Nobody involved with The Daily Stirrer has seen or heard any Brexiteers hysterical predictions of a thirty years recession, but Remainers are not known for their honesty or level headedness. However Hill was not done with the anti – Brexit hyperbole.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, she said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

She’s talking through her posterior orifice again. Those laws are alread in British law and can be undone gradually. That has already been clarified by constitutional lawyers.

Effects Felt for 30 Years

Hill made five references to Anneli Howard, whose CV describes her as a leading junior lawyer in telecommunications law, in the article but the alleged expert’s professional status as a junior lawyer hardly qualifies her opinion as authoritative.

Hill’s moans about a 1930s recession and claims even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades, in the same paragraph. Again she does not name these Brexiteers. In an linked-to article by The Guardian, titled: Two, 50 or 100 years: when do leavers think Brexit will pay off? writer Emine Saner employs that old trick of a very misleading headline.

This is what Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexiteer alluded to actually said: We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time.” That is quite accurate. Benefits accrue every year.

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years.”

Hill managed to take an already purposely-overhyped headline title and turn it into a complete fabricated lie, fake news that links recessions to a 30-year wait for the full benefits to be known.

After 16 paragraphs of total scaremongering and attempted scattering of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Hill mentions the counter-claims.

Economists for Free Trade, a group with links to Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis, claims there is “nothing to fear” from leaving the EU without reaching an agreement.

David Collins, a professor of international economic law at City University of London, said: “The UK can trade quite easily on an uncertified schedule.”

However, Collins conceded that an uncertified schedule “might be an indication of that complaining member’s intention to initiate a dispute against the member,” and that “the WTO dispute settlement process can take several years to resolve”.

Thus two correctly cited experts say no problem. Two law experts, not economic experts makes the opposing claim.

Collins, an international economics professor, is certainly correct, but notice the slant of the article and the title.

The idea of a 30-year recession wins first prize for the most stupid statement ever about Brexit, and that is saying quite a lot.

Hill deserves an award herself (for bad journalism of fake news maybe,) for producing an absurd article full of politically biased nonsense, without even properly referencing who one her alleged “experts” is.

The Guardian frequently presents fake news articles with left-wing progressive and anti – Brexit slants. Hill and Saner provide today’s examples.

As for that predicted 30-year recession:

Short-term, the EU will get hit much harder than the UK. Germany will get hit the hardest. At that point the EU, if it survives, will be ready for serious trade agreement negotiations with the UK.