Here are some thoughts on the Brexit legal challenges:
The remainer mob are trying to derail Brexit by every possible means. The mainstays of their position are claims that the government is behaving ‘illegally’ and ‘undemocratically’, that the government is attempting a ‘coup’, and that they (the remainers) are acting in the country’s best interest.
This is all a pretence, resting on the shock effect of “cognitive dissonance”, and completely the opposite of the actual truth!
Isn’t it time the government rebutted their schemes, by pointing out the vexatious nature of the remainer legal actions and their contradictory use of these terms? There is an ever lengthening list of these dishonest ploys, some even gaining the approval of various courts.
Legality: I believe that Article 50 was extended illegally, which is the subject of an ongoing legal action brought by the English Democrats.
Vexatious actions: The attempts to prevent ‘no deal’ are not, as being claimed, in order to prevent some economic or other disaster for our country. They are a ploy to stop Brexit taking place. If they were the former, real arguments pointing to a disaster would be put forward, and be subject to challenge in the courts. But the remainers, in their legal bid, do not specify this supposed disaster, only that ‘no deal’ be stopped. Does this not show that their actions are ‘vexatious’ and open to challenge and dismissal on those grounds?
Democratic: The government is acting entirely democratically in trying to uphold the 2016 Leave decision. Parliament may be the sovereign law making body, but only derives its mandate from the people who elected it. And it authorised those same people to make the Brexit decision directly, by referendum. It must be true that the decision of the people by official referendum is therefore superior, as there is no democratic body which is more fundamental than the people.
A Coup: A coup can be the attempt by an unofficial group to seize power over, and overthrow the authority of a government, by one means or another. Is that not exactly what the remainers are attempting? And are not the actions of Boris Johnson and the government entirely in the nature of ‘resisting that coup’.
The coup of the remainers also includes a coup against the democratic decision made by the electorate in 2016 – an attempted coup by a faction to usurp the ultimately authority of the people as a whole.
Treason: Is it not time we had new laws of Treason, and a much more specific Oath of Allegiance for MPs? The EU process is a slow motion undermining of the sovereignty of our country’s government, and our democratic process. This is, in effect, an act of Treason.
Why is the government not pursuing court action for treason against the ringleaders of this remainer attempt to seize power and obstruct the democratic Brexit process?
Boris and his team must immediately get on the offensive….as their continuing passivity gives validity to the remainers, where none is due.
The government must start fighting back!!
Respectfully, Ian Phillips
~~~ OOO ~~~
British constitution: in need of reform or respect?
Thankfully a majority – 54 per cent – of respondents to a ComRes survey about Brexit want the 2016 referendum result to be respected; however, 60 per cent agreed that Brexit ‘showed the British constitution was in need of reform’; only 11 per cent disagreed, while 29 per cent said they ‘didn’t know’ (‘Most Britons want referendum respected’, Telegraph, September 11, 2019).
The latter outcome was described as ‘highlighting the public’s frustration with the impasse’, but although understandable it is worrying, since it highlights a lack of public realisation that their frustration stems from Brexit being frustrated by determined Remainer politicians. Emboldened by pro-Remain media outlets, not least the BBC, they are disregarding the British constitution to get their own way, despite having lost a democratic vote.
The British constitution is unwritten, relying instead on historical precedent; learning from the mistakes of earlier generation, each new generation should realise that if political parties or groupings overturn a vote because they do not like the result, they simply encourage their opponents to follow suit; anarchy soon follows, with the outcome determined by might, not right. Sadly, the present generation seems to have forgotten these warnings from history.
The British constitution is not in need of reform; like the Referendum result, it needs to be respected.
Respectfully, Ann Farmer
~~~ OOO ~~~
Under cover of the dazzling gyrations of our remainers in Parliament, Lord James of Blackheath made an intervention in the House of Lords recently to ask about our plans for involvement in EU Defence Union – a highly relevant topic one might think in current circumstances.
If we lose control over our armed forces, nuclear deterrent, and intelligence agencies, then we lose control over our foreign policy, we lose control of our borders and we will have nests of not necessarily friendly spies at MI5 MI6 and GCHQ. We may even lose control of our police, since EU Defence Union includes civilian security agencies, according to the new High Representative Ursula Von der Leyen:
“First of all, just two or three weeks ago, for the first time, we were able to give the green light for a European command capacity in Brussels. That is the first time that military and civil instruments would be commanded together, where these commands would actually come from one single command office.This is a major step forward. It was unthinkable a short while ago, but it’s precisely the right approach to have if we want a European flavour to our defence policy.” (my emphasis)
What “European flavour” might that be?
Reportedly Lord James was interrupted by Lord Blunkett, whose intervention could be interpreted as a veiled threat that he should say no more. But there is more.
Is this what our Lordships have sunk to? Seemingly barely a day goes by without some new depth of “honourable” parliamentary behaviour being plumbed. The silence from the MSM and Parliament on this topic is now deafening.
It is hard to be confident that Boris if “successful” in “leaving the EU” on 31st Oct will unpick these arrangements, since it was he (as Theresa’s Foreign Secretary) that was responsible for overseeing our “negotiations” for setting up EU Defence Union in the aftermath of the referendum vote . . . (let that sink in).
Will we need to prepare ourselves for another long struggle against the giant squid of the EU, “leave” or not?
Respectfully, Jim Makin