I don’t know… these bloody nationalists…



A giant scaffolding sculpture with an image of Britain's Prime Minister wearing the Union Flag and making a gesture towards continental Europe is seen on top of the cliffs overlooking the south coast of England and the Channel
Up yours, Delors… or whoever you are

Someone appears to hate foreigners so much that they have paid for this massive effigy of Theresa May standing on the white cliffs of Dover sticking her fingers up at anyone who arrives on a Ferry.

This will no doubt encourage European leaders to give consideration to the very best possible deal for Britain in the talks that start in a fortnight’s time. I mean who could refuse anything to such nice polite, open minded, cultured people?

According to Kent On Line, the figure has now been removed, but no one seems to know who put it up in the first place. Whoever it was had a bit of spare cash to throw around though, so best not look for the culprit amongst the lower orders. This wouldn’t have come cheap.

Can you imagine the fuss the BBC and the right wing press would have made if a figure of Nicola Sturgeon draped in a Saltire had been erected on our borders making the two fingers sign to the people wishing to visit our country?


…And the rich and “cultivated” needing their share of murdering things… I thought I’d just put up a picture of these Brit Cabinet Ministers.  If anyone sees any connection with cruelty and barbarism, it’s all completely coincidental.


While we are on the subject of Boxing Day, I saw earlier this cartoon character explosion in a paint factory, who must smell like a beery ashtray, was at one of these Jeremy Hunt things and presumably the Fox was there too. Anyway, be warned should you run into him, stand upwind.




Unless I’m very much mistaken, the job of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or indeed any other court in England and Wales, or indeed Scotland or Northern Ireland, is to interpret the law and rule on it as it affects any case brought before them.

It doesn’t matter how many people a terrorist, murderer, thief or rapist can muster to protest, if (s)he is guilty in law as it is written in that jurisdiction, then the court has to find him/her guilty. Likewise, if the law says that this kind of treaty requires parliamentary scrutiny, then no matter how many people disagree, the court has no alternative but to rule that way.

If we can sway judgements based on the number of people we can persuade to march on the courtroom, then we might as well chuck all the law in the bin and leave it to mobs.

Leave campaigners wanted to bring everything back to Britain; for British courts to decide the law; not those in Luxembourg or Strasbourg where foreigners might be involved in the judgements. Fair enough. But it appears they only wanted British judges to rule when they agreed with them!

It’s maybe a good idea to remind Mr Farage at this point (Munguin has no doubt that he is an avid reader), that there are very obvious dangers in getting together a group of that size and hoping that no trouble will break out and that no undesirables join in. I have no doubt that he intends the protest to be peaceful. But that’s not always how these things work out.  Especially if the court’s judgement goes against their wishes.

I hope he knows what he’s doing.


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.

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?