Friday, 4 November 2016

Bonfire night is coming

Three High Court judges have listened to a case brought by two South American immigrants and agreed with them that the will of the British people means sufficiently little that parliament must decide if and when Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty can be triggered by Her Majesty's Government.

This is outrageous for two reasons. First, it was made abundantly clear before the referendum that the result was binding and a Leave vote would be acted on soon afterwards. PM David Cameron said he would trigger Art 50 immediately after the vote, but instead he quit.

Second, who are these people who went to court to trample on the democratically decided will of the British people? Let us look at them first.

Gina Miller: This plaintiff is quite well known in the UK. She is an immigrant from Guyana, South America, a former model who has snagged herself a (white) investment banker husband and is now splashing the cash on expensive court cases. She has said that Brexit made her "feel sick."

Deir Dos Santos: This co-plaintiff is more obscure. He is a hairdresser immigrant from Brazil, but how and when and why he came to the UK is not known. He may not even be a British citizen; there is no requirement to be a British citizen to use the British courts.

So we have two people with no British ancestry attempting to steer the future of our country. They are lauded by a fat-cat human-parasite elite who live the good life on tax-payer cash, either directly, or laundered through the EU.

One could speculate that both the plaintiffs have no real patriotic feelings towards the UK which they regard as a stepping stone into Europe and their dislike of Brexit is not because they think of it as bad for the country, but rather it is bad for them as immigrants.

So far the plaintiffs are winning the case. The High Court judgment is not final though. In December the government will appeal to the Supreme Court. This is one of several possible ways ahead the government could have taken, these being:

  • Ignore the court ruling on the ground that the court had exceeded its powers in dictating to the executive.
  • Put a three line motion to Parliament and so satisfy the court ruling. Rt Hon John Redwood MP has a suggested motion on his blog. He reckons it would pass.
  • Get a whole new Act of Parliament underway. The text of a suggested Act is available here.
  • Appeal to the Supreme Court. This is where we approach fantasy land because if the Supreme Court denies the appeal the government could in theory appeal again to the European Court of Justice.
  • Use another body to trigger Art 50, eg an Order in the Privy Council.
  • Blow up parliament followed by civil war.

PM Theresa May's decision to go the appeal route is correct (at least according to this blog) because had they gone the 'ignore' route there would have been continual legal challenges which would have caused the whole process to grind to a halt.

A 'motion in parliament' may seem quite quick and painless but if it fails to pass then there is a real problem. With parliament is no longer governing according to the will of the people there would have to be a General Election.

A new Act could be blocked in the Lords and would require months for all the readings and to-and-froings between the chambers.

So kicking the can down the road to December 7th, with a judgment in early 2017, seems like the easy way out for now. Of course if SCOTUK (if the Americans can have SCOTUS we can have SCOTUK) rules against the government then the issue blows up again - then we would need the motion in parliament, possibly followed by a General Election.

Incidentally, a General Election would be good for the Conservatives; Labour are in complete disarray so this court ruling could be just the shot in the arm UKIP need to seize a swath of Labour constituencies. We could expect the Tories to increase their majority considerably and many Brexit-friendly MPs to enter parliament.

No comments: