by Stev60 – 27 Sep 2019
The ‘Supreme Court’ decision is clearly constitutionally, legally, and morally wrong, and here’s why:
The decision to prorogue, a longstanding government prerogative with agreement of the Monarch, was declared unlawful, yet no laws were cited as to why this is so, or that were broken, only an interpretation, and a politically biased and context-ignoring one at that, as to how it allegedly infringed against arguable constitutional principles, despite assent of the Monarch having been given, not laws.
That alone makes the judgement at least partly invalid.
The principles cited are these:
“The first is Parliamentary sovereignty – that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased.”
But Parliament was not so prevented; the period of prorogation, hardly huge, or ‘as long as it pleased’, still allowed for Parliament to return and ‘make laws’ before dissolution, and the context of the prorogation was an arguably rogue and usurping, referendum-thwarting and election-blocking parliament that was/is repeatedly acting in defiance of the clearly expressed will of the majority of the people to leave the EU without qualification, far beyond a reasonable term or limit, at great cost and peril to the UK in many ways and areas, even existential, and which has been unreasonably and arguably even treasonously, in collusion with foreign and arguably hostile powers and interests, impeding the ability of the government to fulfil said majority will, a truly extraordinary circumstance which arguably could have justified a complete dissolution of said parliament. To ignore that very salient and pertinent context is to take a political position against the will of the People and the Government and even Queen, and with an arguably rogue and usurping parliament, now itself increasingly in the position of the tyrant of Stuart times when the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty/supremacy was promulgated and settled by force. Moreover, it is not reasonably an absolute principle that ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ override all else no matter what; were that the case, not only would all manner of outrages authorized by Parliament be legal and proper, but the courts themselves would have no say in the matter. Even Parliamentary sovereignty must have reasonable limits, and to ignore that fact is also to take a politically biased position in the circumstances. Clearly a functional and viable constitution must be both reasonable and balanced, setting one arm of it absolutely above not only all formal/ordinary others, but the People itself, from which, aside from the Monarchy historically and ceremonially speaking at least, it derives all its legitimacy, is dangerous political fundamentalism, not sound jurisprudence.
“The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”.
Such accountability was not materially imperilled, in that Parliament had every opportunity to vote No Confidence in the government before and after the period of prorogation, or to take the matter to the people via an election, both methods of which recourse, it was deliberately avoiding and delaying so as to preserve its own life and power unreasonably and dishonestly in furtherance of the obvious agenda of frustrating Brexit and the government’s ability to carry it (or indeed practically any business) out, and thereby the clearly expressed will of the democratic majority in the 2016 referendum, which unfulfilled, renders any further such votes meaningless. The government is accountable to Parliament, but both are accountable in the last instance to the People, the highest and deepest democratic authority, and if one is frustrating the clear will of the people, then it is in the wrong, in this case, Parliament. That the court again has ignored that crucial context is evidence of strong political bias, and hence, unfitness to judge in the matter, as in effect found the High Court of England and Wales in the preceding judgement, when it ruled the matter not justiciable in a court of law, being essentially a political matter to be decided by by the usual methods and actors.
Additionally, and perhaps most crucially, it is clear that long-term preservation of the British Constitution (let alone Nation, People, Sovereignty, and State) itself depends upon the carrying out of Brexit, and the Government’s ability to do so, as authorized by the People in 2016, without further hindrance from an obstructive and arguably captured, rogue, subverted, suborned, usurping, and even treasonous parliament (or ‘Supreme Court’ for that matter).
It is also not irrelevant that the case was brought on the one hand by a Brexit-hating and ‘will of the people’/ non-left-globalist democracy denying Guyana-born ethnic Indian with connections to the likes of Castro and Soros, and on the other by a Scottish parliamentary group whose main political aim apart from the frustration of Brexit, is the breakup of the UK in the case of the SNP, in order to take Scotland back into the EU, or its enablement via yet another referendum and other divisive policies in the case of Labour.
There is also the case/precedent of PM Major’s three-week prorogation in 1997. From order-order:
Major Prorogued Parliament in 1997 to Suppress “Cash for Questions” Sleaze Scandal
From Full Fact:
John Major did prorogue parliament for three weeks in 1997
The suspiciously unanimous finding of the Blair-created ‘Supreme Court’ contrary to the People, Government, and Queen on all counts, is strong evidence at the very least of improper political bias, if not some form of improper pressure from without, and also apparently a form of judicial aggrandizement of the sort that has been termed a ‘judicial coup’ by a respected pro-EU commentator with respect to the conduct of the European court/s in self-aggrandizing and usurping powers not originally agreed by democratic assent.
The Blair-created ‘Supreme Court’ has thereby proved itself untrustworthy and unfit for purpose, and its judgement illegitimate, and sealed its own fate as a body to be dissolved in current form at the first opportunity by a good government with the power to do so.
Here is the thinking of the ‘Briton’ it has sided with against People, Government, Queen, and Country. From the Express:
Gina Miller brands the will of the people UTTER NONSENSE as she DEMANDS second Brexit vote
Quote (Gina Miller was talking to students at Cardiff University apparently):
Ms Miller said: “They have to stop talking about this nonsensical will of the people. It is pure and utter nonsense.
“Democracy is not one day, one time, one vote and the will of the people. It is a social construct that was brought up by the far right. It is nonsense.
“The will of the people changes on a daily basis depending on the issues of the day. The will of the people is not something that is set in stone.”…
“We have got to get radical. I’m sorry but we do.”’
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.