The Supreme Court


“Let the – unelected – Supreme Court Judges decide” … that’s the latest battlecry of the Brexit Wreckers: ‘Rule by Supreme Court’ in the name of ‘Democracy’ –  to keep us in the EU.

This current battle is fought on two fronts. One is the appeal against last week’s decision of the Scottish equivalent of the Supreme Court of England and Wales which had judged the Prorogation unlawful. The second is the the appeal by Miller-Major et al against the decision of the High Court that the Prorogation was lawful because it was a political decision, not a legal matter. Should you wish for a general report, here’s one in the DM, not paywalled. The ruling of the Courts is expected by or after the weekend.

I am not a lawyer, never mind a constitutional lawyer, but as most of the reporters in the MSM aren’t legal eagles either, I’ll have a go representing Joe and Jane Public. This is about us, the actual sovereign, about our decision to Leave. That means we’re as entitled to our opinion as the non-lawyerly Remainers.

I’m informed in my opinion by the following questions from learned counsel Mr  Martin Howe QC, one of the ‘Lawyers for Britain’.  He wrote before the start of the current hearings:

“What right do judges have for saying that Boris Johnson’s reasons for proroguing Parliament are good or bad political reasons? Or for saying that it is preferable for Parliament to be in session, than for the UK’s international negotiating position to be strengthened? There is no law that says Parliament must be in continuous session, and no law which lays down what reasons a government may or may not properly take into account in deciding to prorogue Parliament. For judges to devise out of thin air a list of good and bad political reasons, and to decide that one reason should outweigh another, is to step outside the judicial role and enter inevitably into the realm of politics.” (link)

Keep those points in mind when you listen to the learned Remain counsels arguing in front of the Supreme Court judges. Keep them in mind when you peruse the reports and comments of the not-so-learned Remain reporters and writers of opinion pieces in the MSM! Keep them in mind when debating Remainers!

First though let’s look at Mr Dimbleby who reported from outside the Courts:

“Mr Dimbleby was forthright in his opinions.”I lived through Suez, the miners’ strike, I lived through the Poll Tax debate and the trouble then. I lived through the Iraq demonstrations – I’ve never seen the country so divided as this,” he said.” (paywalled link)

It always amazes me when MSM ‘grandees’, especially BBC ones – all staunch Remainers – bemoan the ‘divisions’ in our country which they themselves have promoted so assiduously. A case in point: the constant showing of hundreds of EU flags in front of Parliament when interviewing whatever MP feels the need to promote him- or herself, the noise levels always turned up when it’s a Brexit MP.

Yes, Mr Dimbleby, you’re one of the creators of that division. You knew what you were doing. Personally, I think this lady has got it right, saying about the Remain circus we see everywhere:

“Former recruitment owner Lorraine Chappell, 61, from Chiswick, West London, said: “I wish these remainers would just let our leader get on and deliver Brexit. It’s sheer pack mentality – I’ve got dogs and it reminds me of that. One starts barking and then the others start and they’re not sure why they’re barking any more.” (paywalled link)

Nice comparison! I would just add that I expect the Dimblebys and the rest of the Remain MSM to wash their hands in innocence when this, our finely balanced way of governance, comes crashing down. ‘We didn’t mean it, this isn’t what we wanted’ – like kids who, having broken a window or a costly porcelain ornament, plead that they ‘didn’t mean to, so it wasn’t their fault’.

The non-lawyer Philip Johnston gives the best overview in today’s MSM,  setting out the case in question:

“Which is sovereign, the people or Parliament? Is the Crown – ie the Government – entitled to interpret the wishes of the former and override the latter? Should the courts intervene in these arguments, something they have been reluctant to do since 1689? Such arcane questions, once the dusty preserve of academic jurists, are now central to our politics. The bedrock of the UK’s constitutional settlement, the separation of powers, has been shaken to its foundations by Brexit.” (paywalled link)

Not by Brexit, Mr Johnston but by the refusal of the losers, Remain, to accept the will of the sovereign, us the people! He does describe the core of this whole case neatly though, referring  to the submission by Lord Pannick for Miller. I quote at length:

“He [Lord Pannick] chose to ignore the great big constitutional elephant in the room: the referendum. Parliament is sovereign only in so far as it derives that authority from the people. It does not exist as a discrete phenomenon. Had there not been a referendum there would not be an issue. The principle that Parliament is supreme and the executive is answerable to it is not seriously questioned. But there must be a source for that sovereignty. When Parliament is preventing the implementation of a majority decision of the people taken in a referendum it is arguable that it is Parliament, not the executive, that is behaving unlawfully. Our system is a balance between the powers of its institutional components. To hear some MPs and, indeed Lord Pannick, you would imagine that what Parliament says goes. Yet once it handed the decision on Britain’s membership of the EU to the people, then it was required to enact the public will and not seek to frustrate it.” (paywalled link)

As non-lawyer and representative of us peasants, entitled to our non-lawyerly opinion just as the Remainers believe they themselves are entitled, I submit the following paragraphs which show me that the case is a sham:

“Even if we leave the referendum aside, the prerogative to prorogue in this instance does not undermine parliamentary sovereignty. It has not removed Parliament’s power to scrutinise the actions of the executive, even if has limited the time for that to happen. Furthermore, it was open to the Commons to pass a motion of no confidence in the Government if it did not like what it was up to. The reason it didn’t was because it did not suit the purposes of the Opposition to have an election at this time.” (paywalled link)

Well, yer ‘onours, what say you? The ‘learned’ deliberations in the MSM about what Johnson would do should the Courts decide against him, e.g. recalling Parliament and the proroguing it again, are just little games played on the sidelines. Here though is a lovely snippet summarising a piece of Lord Pannick’s speech, illustrating his learnedness:

“Lord Pannick [was]  telling the Supreme Court that sovereignty is about more than legislation. MPs also put questions to ministers, scrutinise policies, pass motions and hold debates. Because MPs are elected and the government is not, these powers ensure that the UK is governed democratically.” (link, paywalled)

Excuse me – isn’t the government, i.e. the ministers, elected just as the PM is elected, namely by us, the voters in their constituencies? Or is Lord Pannick referring to Whitehall Mandarins who are certainly not elected, alleging blithely that they are ‘the government’? Well well well!

Leaving this legal thicket for today, here’s one piece of news illustrating that, as some have surmised, these court cases are a way for plaintiffs to extract money from the Remain sheep:

“Gina Miller, the millionaire Remainer lawyer, is begging for cash online in a bid to halt Boris Johnson and his plan to carry out and complete Brexit.” (link)

In other words – she and the rest “will fight for you, the people” as long as you pay up. But – why should we? Is her Soros money running out?

Finally, never forget to point out to Remainers who champion this legal challenge that Remain means the EU will make the laws, not the ‘sovereign Parliament’ they suddenly love so much. At the very least the ‘learned’ MPs must know this – after all, we thick, uneducated plebs, we Leave voters, do!

As the appeal goes into the second day, we’ll




Print Friendly, PDF & Email