HMS Brexit is heading towards an iceberg … and here’s how the powers-that-be can block Brexit in practice.
We are told that next month the High Court is due to hear a plea from someone to rule that Article 50 cannot be triggered unless Parliament authorises it. This is an attempt by the remainians to reverse the referendum result.
Since that court is manned, I think, by the same judges who turned down Stuart Wheeler’s very reasonable pleas in the past, we may expect it to rule in favour of the plaintiff, ie to say that Parliament must have the last word.
This government will not defy the Court.
If Mrs May’s “conversion” to Brexit is not genuine, she will be secretly pleased at being let off the hook. She will be able to say to the nation, “Sorry, we have to comply with the court’s decision. My hands are tied”.
We know that the majority of MPs – not to mention the Peers – in the present Parliament will then vote to stop the government from triggering Article 50, or at least to gunge things up somehow so that we cannot get out.
Mrs May cannot even ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call an early election, because of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, which could – constitutionally – be repealed by a simple majority, but this Parliament is unlikely to do that. We are therefore stuck with the present Parliament until 2020.
The only way really to avoid this would be if Mrs May takes the bull by the horns and invokes Article 50, straight away, before the High Court has a chance to pronounce.
However, if she is still a closet remainian, she will certainly not do that. And she has already said she will not invoke it before next year.
If Parliament votes to flout the will of the People, as it was clearly expressed in the referendum result, the People will get very angry indeed. But they will have no way of expressing their view within any significant institution.
So what then?
Take to the streets with scythes and pitchforks?
Our police, unlike those of our continental neighbours, are not equipped and trained for major street battles. That would give Mrs May a reason to call on the “special intervention units of our EU allies”, as she said she would, “if needed”, in June 2012, in a dreadfully rash statement to the House, replying to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Dominic Raab MP.
Will we then see the lethally-armed, paramilitary, Eurogendarmerie on our streets, engaging in what might be euphemistically described as “crowd control”?
This is not such a fanciful scenario as it might seem. There is a move afoot in the remaining EU to go now full speed ahead towards a single European State, with a single “paramilitary federal police force”, as reported here.
This report has links to videos where you can see Guy Verhofstadt getting all revved up now that “we’ve shed Britain, who was always holding us back, so let’s go full steam ahead to the single state”.. (Just as I predicted…) And they want a “European FBI”… as Helmut Kohl demanded back in the nineties. We can expect them to fast-track the EU-Prosecutor too. And give him Corpus Juris as his handbook.
Herr Verhofstadt has revealed his anti-British sentiments in the EU Parliament on various occasions, and he would doubtless relish the chance to send his men-at-arms over to our streets to put the boot in on the British “Europhobe protestors”.
I can only hope that the High Court will see sense and not defy the government’s official position, and – more importantly – the verdict given in the referendum by the People. If they do, they risk plunging Britain into chaos such as has not been seen in our islands for the last three and a half centuries. Will they light the tinder and cause a major conflagration, such as Guy Fawkes could only dream of?
Will they “cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war”? They face an historic responsibility.
The debate in court will surely revolve on who is the supreme authority in the land – Parliament or the People?
The basic principle is that the government is normally the servant of Parliament, but Parliament is the servant of the People. The People normally do not speak, apart from electing the law-givers.
But now they have spoken, in all their majesty.
The Will of the People is nowadays the sole source of legitimate authority. Their Will, once manifested, must be obeyed. Parliament has no right to oppose the expressed Will of the People. Let us hope that the Court sees it that way.
During the Civil War, three and a half centuries ago, every Englishman and woman had to decide, “Who do you hold for? The King, or Parliament?”
If the above scenario unfolds, the question will be, “Who do you hold for? The People, or the members of this Parliament?”
Let us hope that it does not get to that point.