I HATE TO HARP ON ABOUT THIS BUT…

‘Traitors of the people’. Headline from 1933 Germany. Featured are judges, politicians, etc. antithetical to Hitler.

 

brexit-htler
Does that perhaps remind you of anything you’ve seen in the Daily Mail?

br

bexit
And then you have Jacob, bless his little heart, who wants to instigate purges and appoint 1000 fellow travellers to the aristocracy? OK, I know it’s Jacob, and he’s not altogether in possession of all his faculties. (Nanny hangs on to them for him lest he should mislay them). But don’t you sometimes think Britain has lost the plot a bit?

A thought occurred to me  this afternoon.

Imagine this case hadn’t been brought. No one raised the possibility that the use of royal prerogative was  praeter legem.

So, in March Tessy Mayhem invokes Article 50, and the irreversible and irrevocable process of Brexit begins.

Then some concerned member of the public brings a case, and the verdict is the same as it was yesterday.

The Prime Minister is acting illegally, or at least in contravention of the law by using royal prerogative in this case.

Where would Britain be in these circumstances?

The clock is ticking. There is no way back.

The EU, asked if it can extend the time limit, raises its collective eyebrows and says…

What?

You didn’t know your own law?

You didn’t take advice from your highest legal authorities before doing this?

Nah. Come off it. You’re having us on.

We don’t believe you.

You couldn’t be that thick.

Could you?

 

BREXIT MEANS…ERM…

brexitSo, it appears that Brexit means Brexit, but only if parliament agrees.

The English High Court has given a judgement, and on a strict reading of the law, three judges have found that May cannot use royal prerogative and must put the matter to parliament.

Judges (even if they are gay…the Daily Mail, turning seven shades of purple with indignation at the judgement of an all-British court, pointed out that one of the judges was homosexual, as if that meant that his law degree and years of experience were worthless) are bound to interpret the law as it is written. And that seems to be the way that the law is written.

So where does it go from here?

brexit1David Brexit has said that the government will appeal to the UK Supreme Court, which has the power to uphold or overturn the ruling of the High Court. After that, it would be unlikely that the UK government could take the matter further.

An intelligent reading of the subject is given by Craig Dalzell here.

It seems to me that, given that the election of MPs predates the referendum, and that the referendum was a one issue question,  the referendum results might be taken as a more reliable indication of the will of the people on the matter, and consequently  MPs would be foolish  to vote against the way that their constituents voted. This would mean, of course, that every MP in Scotland, including Mr Mundell, should vote against Brexit.

brecit
Voting to a party whip, or on one’s own conscience would be inadvisable. It would give the impression that the opinion of an individual MP was more important than that of their constituents.

I also think that giving parliament the right to overturn a democratic vote on a single subject might set a dangerous precedent for the future. Clearly, this is significant to me as far as a Scottish Independence referendum is concerned.

brexNigel Farage sounded, to put it mildly angry, in a tweet which read:

“I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.!”

For once I agree with him, although you can’t help but laugh at the irony as far as he is concerned, as illustrated in a response from James Melville:

“British laws for British people. Taking control back. Parliamentary sovereignty. Isn’t that what you wanted?

It’s a vexed question, with sensible arguments on both sides, and it is worth repeating that judges make decisions like this, not based on common sense, but on a strict reading of law.

I’d be interested to hear your opinions, as ever?

EVERY TIME THE GOVERNMENT GETS IN A MESS…

…The way they distract the plebs is to warn them that “foreigners be abroad”… or rather that they DON’T BE ABROAD but rather, knocking on the door of GREAT Britain. (Quick chorus of Jerusalem or Rule Britannia! Stand up straight, wear a decent £2000 suit and sing God Save the Queen.)

destraction
Just when you thought Brexit had got rid of all these foreigners… MI5 has found them lurking in cyberspace and Phil the Floater is just the man to get rid of them with his trusty pumpkin.

So, given that the economy is tanking and Phil, the party boy Hammond (yawn) is looking for what he calls some “headroom” in paying down the deficit (he’s not even attempting the debt) and Mrs May is going back on promises to look after the little man and woman…reducing benefits,  that worker representation on boards is facing stiff opposition from the big bosses (ie those who fund the Tory party), and she’s considering dropping pensioners’ triple lock... here  comes the scaremongering.

Mr Putin is beating Tessy to her snoopers’ charter, and there’s a sound  chance that the Kremlin will have read yer emails before Tessy has. He has cyber spies everywhere. Even the shopping list you emailed yourself is out there somewhere being scrutinised. (Why is Munguin buying knicker elastic?)

Is he? Yeah, well I’d like to know that too!

headroom
Let’s call him Max from now on… (Max Headroom? )