The Supreme Court – perhaps the new seat of the UK Government?


No rest for the wicked … and:  ‘needs must’! Today’s Sunday papers have brought forth a slew of important articles. I think they deserve a closer look. I am concentrating on opinion pieces and reports from two sources only, the DT and the Times. All are paywalled – remember this when clicking on the links I provide. I’ll not alert you to that fact again in the text below.

Let’s start with the article in the DT on the latest EU ‘negotiating news’. It’s by the resident Remainer, the DT’s EU Correspondent Peter Foster who has a host of EU ‘sources’. This is the crucial paragraph:

“After this week the appetite to entertain and elaborate on such proposals in the EU is limited given the reality in London and the limited ambitions of its government for the future relationship,” a senior EU source said.” 

How many times have we heard and read that the EU is relying on the Remain Parliament to wreck Brexit! Since ‘rebel’ MPs have gone to Brussels to negotiate an extension, behind the government’s back – reported yesterday in the Brexit Betrayal’ column – surely nobody would expect the EU to give an inch to the government’s negotiators!

I don’t need no crystal ball to predict that the Remainers in Parliament will use this latest report to clobber Johnson with, shouting that his negotiators are useless. 

Well done, Brexit Wreckers – that’s how to undermine your government on the international stage: usurp the government’s right to negotiate. And why should Brussels not keep on saying ‘non’ – they look forward to a new government to stop Brexit altogether. They must believe the chances for that are good, especially when they read about the unprecedented attacks on Johnson and his government. 

First up is Philip Hammond. He dropped his mask. See the DT report under this headline: “Philip Hammond tells his constituents ‘it’s my party and I won’t have it taken away’”. It’s now ‘his’ party – and apparently ‘his’ country which he wants to keep in the EU. Peasants like you and me, even if they are his own constituency party members, better just tug their forelocks and shut up.

He is planning a legal challenge regarding the withdrawing of the whip from him and 21 colleagues, and:

“He has also written to Mark Spencer, the Chief Whip, demanding a formal explanation of the move and the procedures for challenging it. It is understood that he and other MPs are preparing to launch a formal appeal against Mr Spencer’s decision to withdraw the whip.” 

Strangely enough, we read a week ago in the DT:

“A senior source in Whips’ office said: “The whips are telling Conservative MPs a very simple message – if they fail to vote with the government on Tuesday they will be destroying the government’s negotiating position and handing control of Parliament to Jeremy Corbyn. Any Conservative MP who does this will have the whip withdrawn and will not stand as Conservative candidates in an election.”

And so it came to pass … Words and deeds have consequences, have they not! Did Hammond et al think Johnson ‘didn’t mean it’? 

Next, a court case is apparently in preparation should Johnson not do what the Benn Bill – so carefully written with the help of the EU! – forces him to do. This whole scenario surely belongs in the category “You couldn’t make it up”!

RemainCentral dedicates two reports and two opinion pieces to this “event”, none of which ask if that Benn Bill is actually legal. I wonder if there might be a ‘legal challenge’ being drawn up to decide that issue? After all, politicians seem to be prepared to hand over their responsibilities to unelected judges. 

Even worse, the Brexit Wreckers are now apparently making provision to hand over the reins of government to the unelected Mandarins of Whitehall! This quote is from an article in The Times:

“If he [Johnson] fails to make the request to the EU to delay Brexit, a cross-party group of MPs, including the 21 rebels expelled from the Conservative Party last week, will take him to court. One option available to the group is to try to compel Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, to request the extension on behalf of the government.”

Remain MPs seem happy to hand over their responsibilities to unelected judges and Mandarins. Why do we actually need a HoC if the MPs just sit there, letting others do their job for them?

The following quotes are from another article in The Times. They are all based on ‘sources’. Both, sources and reporters, display a level of hysterics that surely is unprecedented.

Everything is a ‘cunning Cummings plan’. In contradiction to the quote above, it’s now Cummings who will ‘force’ the Wreckers to ask Mr Sedwill to take over, and it’s Cummings who will ‘force’ a court battle on the poor Remainers:

“In a dramatic escalation of the prime minister’s war with parliament, Johnson will ignore legislation passed last week demanding that he seek an extension from Brussels to Brexit negotiations past the Halloween deadline — forcing MPs to take him to court.”

That scenario has Remainers salivating:

“Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said he could be prosecuted for contempt of court. “If you are found guilty of defying a court order then you are jailed,” he said.”

Correct me if I’m wrong – but has there been a Court Order yet, forcing Johnson to comply with the Benn Bill?

The next quotes are even more hysterical, emphasising the alleged role Cummings is playing in all this, according to ‘sources’, with a warning of yet another court case:

“Cummings has told colleagues that unless remainers can seize control of parliament again and pass a law revoking article 50 between October 21 and 31, they will have to ask the Supreme Court for a court order to try to force Johnson’s hand. No 10 believes it will be hard for the Supreme Court to act fast enough in the 10-day window. If MPs do revoke article 50, sources say Johnson would also refuse to co-operate in the revocation process, causing further legal chaos which would be difficult to unpick before October 31.”

I hope you noted the obfuscation: it’s Cummings on the one hand, No 10 on the other, implying that Cummings ‘is’ No 10. His thoughts on what might happen are taken for actual policies. The next quote demonstrates this as well. First we have an assumption, then a quote – from ‘a source’:

“Cummings’s calculation is that if Corbyn co-operates with MPs to revoke article 50, the Tories would destroy the Labour Party in the election. But Cummings has told officials in No 10: “The more hysterical remainers become with a campaign to arrest the PM unless he surrenders, the stronger our position with the country will get. Most MPs do not understand how much the country hates parliament and wants someone to sort out this mess.”

Mind you – I think that Cummings is spot on in his analysis!

I hope that all the Brexit Wrecker MPs take the time to read two opinion pieces in the Times today. One is by Dominic Lawson who remarks:

“Parliament has, by an unprecedented form of action sanctioned by the “bollocks to Brexit” Speaker, put an improvised road block in front of that vehicle [to deliver Brexit].  But even in this, Johnson has achieved something: he has demonstrated to the public, though perhaps not in the way he wanted, that parliament would do anything it could to block Brexit.”

Exactly! The more the parliamentary Remainers try to wreck Brexit, the worse their image outside Westminster becomes, especially when voters hear this:

“That political undead, Tony Blair, confessed at the start of the week, when he urged on parliament exactly the route it took: “I personally believe so strongly on Brexit that I would do virtually anything to stop it.”

Lawson finishes with an observation by Robert Craig, lecturer in public law at the LSE:

“Craig’s point is that this [the Benn Law] is an unprecedented usurpation of the “prerogative powers of the crown . . . exercised by government”. None of the negotiations of earlier EU treaties were directed remotely by the collective instruction of unaccountable legislators, nor could they have been: such matters are conducted, as of right, by the executive — though their conclusions may later be rejected by the legislature. So, according to Craig, Johnson would be entitled to refuse crown consent to the Benn bill.”

Coming from a different direction, the Leading Article in The Times with the title “Parliament should not assume the prerogative of the harlot” makes the point slightly differently, concluding:

“The biggest threat to Britain comes from Mr Corbyn, not Brexit. His Labour Party is already seeking to govern from the opposition benches without winning an election. Parliament must not dictate to the executive branch of government. As was once said by Stanley Baldwin in a different context about journalists: “Power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot.“

We can now say that Brexit Wreckers inside and outside Parliament are “harlots” … Therefore treat the Remain exculpations and explanations in today’s TV shows with disdain: they are harlots.

Gossip and conjectures are not facts but that doesn’t mean we should not be aware of them. They are being used to drive the agenda of the Remain harlots.




Print Friendly, PDF & Email