A sovereign people delegate to a sovereign Parliament

The Brexit vote was based around the proposition that we the people need to take back control from Brussels of our laws, our borders and our money. Brexit voters wish to recreate a strong UK Parliament, answerable to voters, with sovereign powers. The MPs keep their jobs for as long it pleases the voters, who decide at election and by election time if their Parliament is exercising their sovereignty in the way they wish.

The Remain MPs just do not understand this central idea of people’s sovereignty. They have done all in their power over many years to remove power after power from the UK Parliament and therefore from UK voters by transfers to the EU through a series of Treaties and through acceptance of all ECJ rulings, Directives and Regulations the EU makes. They misled the country over the extent of the power grab by Brussels, sought to deny Parliament proper debates and votes about much of the law and decisions coming from the EU, and where debate was forced over EU laws rightly had to tell us it did not make any difference what Parliament thought or said as laws, decisions and judgements made by the EU could not be amended or set aside by our Parliament.

Now they are seeking to thwart popular sovereignty by appealing to our law courts. They ironically claim they are seeking to buttress Parliamentary sovereignty by asking judges to set the Parliamentary timetable, and to interfere in the legislative process. This achieves the very opposite. A sovereign Parliament (sovereign because it is derived from the sovereignty of the voters) sets its own timetable, decides what it will debate and legislate or how else it will make and communicate its decisions. If a majority in Parliament disagree strongly with government direction of the timetable then they have many options to overturn the decision or the government.

The Gina Miller judgement created a costly delay in our departure from the EU – around £7bn of extra EU net budget contribution for starters. It required Parliament to legislate a decision it had already taken, the decision to send the Article 50 letter. Parliament did so by a very large majority, showing the demand for a longer legislative means of expressing the decision made no difference to the will of Parliament then that we should leave. Mrs May was wrong not simply to legislate straight away to cut down the loss of time and head off the legal challenge. The legal challenge weakened Parliament by placing the Courts above Parliament in an important matter of political judgement.

It is to be hoped that the courts this coming week understand it is not their role to tell Parliament when to meet or what to debate. It is for government to lead this. If the Parliament has lost confidence in the government’s judgement in these matters then it is for a new Parliamentary majority to emerge to vote the government down. We do not elect the judges. We cannot sack them at an election if they cease to please. The decision on how and when to leave the EU is one that only Parliament can take. It has to take it in the knowledge that it promised to take us out of the EU following the vote. If MPs do not keep their word on this they should expect voters to show their strong disapproval when next they judge the performance of the members of this Parliament in an election. Either Parliament gets us out soon, or the sovereign people will demand a different Parliament.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

315 Comments

  1. Pominoz
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    Sir John,

    “The decision on how and when to leave the EU is one that only Parliament can take”

    I really do hope that you are right! Yet there is more treachery – both in Europe and at home – to stop Brexit.

    In Europe, MEPs are calling for the EC to take action under Article 7 of the EU founding treaty which is used to censure countries deemed to be undermining democracy. What does the EU know about democracy? Also, news that the EU may simply declare that October 31st is no longer the deadline for leaving and, as such, keep the UK inside the bloc? If so, then we are shackled until they decide we can be free. I do not believe this, but if the Halloween date can be changed by one of the parties, what is to stop Boris declaring that we are leaving next week?

    Turning to the UK. My understanding is that Knighthoods or Honours are bestowed on individuals to recognise their positive contribution to the UK or its people. The various UK traitors who are currently revealing themselves by their actions during the Brexit process should, due to their treachery, now have that Knighthood or Honour stripped from them. They should be made aware immediately of the ramifications of their treachery.

    Boris is bright enough to know that if he fails to deliver Brexit, he and the Conservative Party are toast. A bunch of opinionated, self-serving thugs must not be allowed to thwart our exit on WTO terms.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      What does the European Union know about democracy?

      Well, just one man, elected by just ninety thousand out of sixty-seven million cannot suspend its democratically-elected parliament, for one thing.

      You don’t do irony, do you?

      • formula57
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        @ Martin in Cardiff – and you don’t do constitutional law, do you?

        • Hope
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

          JR, I just tread John Ashworths article in Con Woman, which directly correlates with,sovereignty of our country relating to Military and fishing grounds. If his,view is correct it is truly appalling that Mayhab could consider leaving the military to EU control with no UK chief in command during the alleged transition period. It strikes me what a dishonest Traitor she truly is when claiming, repeatedly, her servitude plan was a good deal.

          Similarly his interpretation is that fisheries would continue under EU control during the same period, despite Gove’s former claims as Wnvirnment Secretary.

          Therefore we are reminded by Ashworth and Lawyers for Britain what an appalling agreement in its entirety Mayhab tried to force through three times! No wonder the likes of Hammond, Letwin, Clarke etc were voting for it!

          Therefore why is Johnson only claiming to get rid of the backstop? The Reston Mayhabs servitude plan is appalling.

          Who in their right mind or conscience having any regard for the lives of our UK military would delegate command and control to a foreign power without any control!

          This brings us back o your previous blog. Who authorisedand/or made the decision for the seizure of the Iranian tanker on route to Syria in breach of EU sanctions and who,authorised its quiet release? We the UK taxpayer demand an answer.

          • Martin in Cardiff
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink

            Yes, I do, actually.

      • David Taylor
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:01 am | Permalink

        Martin in Cardiff .
        You seem a bit short of understanding how the UK system works .
        The Conservative Party was elected by a small majority to form a Government under I assume the terms of the fixed Parliament act , the present Prime Minister was elected by a convincing majority of Conservative Party members .
        The EUs decisions are made by a group of appointed , not elected Politicians .

      • libertarian
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        Martin in Cardiff

        The new EU Commission President ( currently under investigate in her home country) was “elected” ( she wasn’t even actually on the ballot paper) by just 368 people out of 400 million . How do we get rid of her?

        We can vote Boris out at the next election shortly

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 6:28 am | Permalink

          How do “we” get rid of the President of the UK Law Commission or the President of the UK Board Of Trade?

          The Council of the twenty-eight leaders is the supreme power of the European Union, not those civil servants.

          The EU has no government and no president.

          Reply The President of the Board of Trade is the Business Secretary who can be sacked by PM, pArliament and electors. There are 5 EU Presidents, none directly elected.

          • libertarian
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:14 am | Permalink

            Martin in Cardiff

            Er you claim to be a legal expert yet you dont seem to have a grasp of the basics even. The President of the Board of Trade is an elected politician ….

            If the 28 leaders have the power you will need to tell us why Cameron had no power to get some very minor changes thereby preventing even holding an election then you will have to tell us how come Bernier popped up this morning saying no deal, Who did he ask? Where can I see how each of the 28 members voted on this topic?

            You are absolutely right , its a Federal wannabe country with no government , just a politburo . Very soviet

      • Robert mcdonald
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        One man elected by his constituency and selected by MPs who were also selected by their constituencies is trying to implement the decision of 17.4 million people. And considering the selection process of the president of the EU involves NO ONE elected by the public you are being ironically hypocritical are you not.

        • Andy
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

          False.

          The selection of the EU Commission President involves the 28 EU heads of government – who are all elected by the public.

          It also involves MEPs – who are also all elected by the public. Indeed these leaders and MEPs represent everyone in the EU.

          Tell me – who elected Boris Johnson, beyond half those who chose to vote in Uxbridge and a bunch of old white men in the Tory party? Nobody.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

            So not one single European citizen actually votes for their President.
            Contrast America which you criticise Andy.

      • Fred H
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:45 am | Permalink

        I must have missed my voting paper when the postman came round. You pretend 67m could vote but I didn’t get the chance.

        When Merkel decides, its just her out of an estimated 513m who don’t get to vote.

      • Trevor Butler
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:54 am | Permalink

        How about a European Commission elected by no one or a European parliament where no one can propose legislation? – In the UK the PM is usually the leader of the party in power so is not subject to popular vote but the party is at election time – He/she ain’t some sort of president – Do get with the programme – Prorogation is a normal thing when a Queen’s speech is coming up and shutting Parliament for the conference season happens every year – so losing 4 days of debate is not exactly a coup d’etat or an overthrow of a legitimate government…Heck I know this I’ve don’t even live in the UK…and before you start…I’m still registered to vote in the Wokingham constituency as is my legal right for about nine more years….

        • margaret howard
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

          Trevor Butler

          Repeat after me:

          “The EU is a trading bloc consisting of 28 democratically elected, sovereign nations, not a country.”

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

            One minute you claim it is a trading bloc, next you tell us you are a citizen of this organisation , which now has a flag, an anthem, many ambassadors, a President and ambitions for expansion with its own armed force.
            Some trading bloc.
            Read their ambitions stated in the Five Presidents Report.
            You think they will hasten your burning ambitions for equality and socialism but it is run by a new elite who care nothing for you.

          • libertarian
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:18 am | Permalink

            Margaret Howard

            It appears very much that you didn’t know what you were voting for

            If the EU is just a trading block whats all the fuss about? How do you claim to be the citizen of a trading block?

            You know as well as I do that the ambition of the EU is to become a federal state run by an appointed politburo

          • Posted September 1, 2019 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

            Why does a trading bloc need an army?

          • villagecranberry
            Posted September 3, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

            Why does a trading block have embassies in countries around the world?

      • agricola
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        Would you have liked the conservative and other voters to have had a vote on Gordon Browns position as Labour leader and PM. Of course not, it was of course different then. It always is when you put pen to paper. Corbyn only got where he is thanks to the Marxist arrivals in the Labour party, not to Labour voters who will get their say at a GE. You can have your one vote when there is a GE.

        As to your first question. The EU knows nothing about democracy and patently does not wish to know anything about such an embarrassing word. Their modus operandi is about as close to the old USSR as one could be without realising or admitting it.

      • David Maples
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

        Stop talking drivel Martin! Boris is the duly elected leader of the majority party in the Commons, and as such becomes the PM. General elections do not take place to elect a PM, but to elect MP’s. Those of like mind band together and choose a leader, and if that party is in the majority, he becomes First Lord of the Treasury(btw, the Second Lord of the Treasury is the Chancellor of the Exchequer). Didn’t they teach you constitutional history in your local comp?

    • jane4brexit
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      I don’t see how a sovereign government can have members paid for and loyal to another state in it. Had these members of both houses allowed a reasonable Brexit to follow on from the referendum, then maybe we could have called these payments historical and earned under different times and rules.

      However they have lied (they do and should know what was said before the referendum and they use double think words to make their arguments…so I do say lied) and tried to bring down this government, which is only doing at last what the people voted for and what it said it would do.

      So I now think it only logical for anyone in either house in receipt of an EU pension or income, to have to stand down after Brexit and be replaced in the Commons and in the Lords simply allow it to reduce as many think it should. It was they who turned this into a warlike situation and in that situation they should not be in our government.

  2. Len Grinds
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    Utter gibberish. “The sovereignty of the voters” – where did you get that from? Certainly not from Bagehot or Dicey. You are simply inventing new and meaningless phrases in your panic to cover up how the people are steadily seeing through the untruth that Brexit is about restoring power to our Parliament – it’s not, it’s about the rich and powerful silencing the voices of MPs, and selling off the NHS and our farming industry to Trump.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      Oh do give it a rest.

      The rich, well connected and corporations are the ones who benefit from continued membership of this union (Gina Miller is not poor I think).

      The spin that it is posh toffs who are taking us out is tired and incorrect. The working man sees unfair competition taking away his standard of living to subsidise corporations and those with nannies and wants out.

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      Where do you get this rubbish from about selling off the NHS? In any event the private sector provides most of it anyway. Yes it’s funded by the public sector but apart from the people costs the rest of it mainly gives to the private sector, who guess what Len. Make a PROFIT.

      So if most of the money goes into Corporates pockets anyway, why not give them some more if they can provided a better service and reduce the cost to the tax payer.

      Oh sorry Len, you are not interested in service are you, as long as no one makes a PROFIT you don’t care.

    • Kathleen P
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      If the TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US had not foundered, the NHS could well have been up for grabs and the UK would have had virtually no power to stop it, being only one of 28 voices. Would you have had the same qualms about selling off the NHS in those circumstances? Because you would have been whistling in the wind.

      I suspect what you are really saying is that you don’t trust your Government. That is something we can, as a country, do something about. We have a voice through lobbying our MP, through media, and ultimately, through the ballot box. There is absolutely no comparable means of having your say in anything the EU decides. Once the Commission has determined on a path and the Council has approved it, the Parliament is merely a rubber stamp. You think you have any power at all in that process? Think again.

      • tim
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:01 am | Permalink

        you mean, once Her Merkel decides, what is best for Germany!

        • margaret howard
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

          tim

          Didn’t know Germany had anything to do with England and Wales voting for Brexit. I don’t think I’ve heard Frau Merkel commenting on it once, either in our or her own country’s press.

          I suppose it makes a change from blaming the BBC for Brexit.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

            You must read the Guardian Margaret.
            Merkel is the main player in the EU.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        They, TTIP, didn’t “founder”.

        The European Union’s “powerless, rubber-stamping” Parliament kicked it out of the stadium, and quite right too.

        The EU has a direct democracy process too Kathleen:

        https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/initiatives/european-citizens-initiative

        Didn’t the Daily Express tell you???

        • libertarian
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

          MiC

          You mean the EU scared of competition decided to keep their outdated overpriced protected markets and NOT have a trade deal with their biggest market . Which is why the EU takes on average 12 years to negotiate a trade deal when every other country does it in 14 months .

          You might start to ask why we dont have trade deals because for instance Italian tomato growers like dumping subsidised tinned tomatoes into markets If you were at all on the ball you might start to think but why should the UK suffer because of this when we aren’t in that market at all. Trying to do one size fits all trade deals for 28 different countries with very different market sectors really doesn’t work

          Maybe the Guardian didn’t tell you, probably busy organising etc ed

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      Les,
      You could not be more wrong
      Nearly all the rich and powerful are EU fans.

      • Fred H
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:47 am | Permalink

        and they want to stay rich and powerful, of course.

        • Tad Davison
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

          True, and by stirring up misguided lefties, liberals, and the aggressive protesting classes, they hope to get their way. Interesting that Boris has received yet another bounce in the polls and turncoat Corbyn and McDonnell are seeing their projected share diminish.

          Two excellent items on Brexit Central earlier in the week, both penned by former Labour politicians – Brian Gould and Austin Mitchell. They might just educate some of these no-hopers, but I won’t hold my breath.

      • margaret howard
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        Edward2

        “Nearly all the rich and powerful are EU fans.”

        Can you give us a few examples?

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

          Yes I can.
          I’m amazed you don’t realise this obvious fact.
          From the House of Lords to Blair to Kinnock et al, to the big multi nationals, to most failed European national politicians who get big jobs in the EU, to most European civil servants, to the Quangocracy to the many charity groups top management, to the many millionaires and billionaires around Europe.
          They love the opportunities for well paid unelected jobs in their semi retirement and that the EU’s protectionist policies keep their companies comfy and protected against new companies coming in to their markets with cheaper competitive goods and services.

          • tim
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

            Edward2, Brilliantly put! Take note Maggie!

    • Richard1
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      Stupid post. Who has indicated any plans to ‘sell off’’ the NHS? When indeed has any govt either Conservative or labour sold any bit of the nhs. Your post is drivel.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      What do you mean by “selling the NHS” ? You mean if a new hospital is being built USA companies are not allowed to tender to build it but Romanian companies can ? Why’s that then ?

    • Caterpillar
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      Len Grinds,

      At the next general election vote for a candidate that is not from the rich and powerful, a candidate that represents other voices.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        We need to examine the finances of politicians who actively campaign to stay in the EU to see if there is a hidden incentive.

        It’s extraordinary that so many who were vehemently opposed to the EU on very good solid grounds, then went on to support it once they acquired a taste for the tax-payer funded perks and the good life it provided.

        Some people however acquire their funds independently from other sources, so money alone should not be the main criteria when judging a candidate’s suitability.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      Indeed, Len.

      It is knowing, cynically misleading gibberish too in my opinion.

      The UK Constitution says only one thing “Parliament Alone Is The Law”.

      It absolutely does not say “the people alone are the law”, thank goodness, or we would probably still have the Ducking Stool.

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        Funnily BJ has doubled his lead over Labour in the polls.

        He’d landslide an election right now.

      • agricola
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

        And who pray do you think elects Parliament.

      • David Maples
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        No Martin, the British Constitution says nothing of the sort, in fact it says nothing because it is unwritten! Supreme power is vested in ‘Queen in Parliament’. Better go back to school Martin.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        So you would be quite content then to let MPs do whatever they want upon being elected to parliament, and ignore election manifesto committments because they are supreme and the people don’t really matter.

        Why then do the people have the right to recall a bad MP if they are not supreme?

        It’s this sort of tosh that confirms absolutely that we are right, and you leavers are consistently wrong!

      • steve
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

        Martin in Cardiff

        “The UK Constitution says only one thing”

        It does not say anything…..we don’t have a written constitution.

        Kind of shot yourself in the foot there.

    • Robert mcdonald
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      What utter … well .. remoanese … much similar to tripe. Only remoaner bigots would try to say the northern heart lands of traditional labour are fools enough to believe their vote to leave was anything other than a rejection of the anti democratic insular and protectionist eurocracy. We voted to regain sovereignty and the right to decide our own destiny … which will happen after we leave on 31 Oct.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        The amusing thing about selling off the NHS to Trump – is that Brexit voters are mainly old. They will need the NHS they are selling off long before I do.

        Enjoy your old age care – delivered by the cheapest bidder. (Quality and compassion optional).

        Reply The sad thing about this post is it is yet another lie. There are n o plans to sell the NHS to Trump

        • David Maples
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

          Do you just make all this stuff up Andy, or do you have legitimate chapter & verse?

          • Fred H
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

            not sure whether its an ill-informed imagination, or should we blame the stuff he takes?

        • Tad Davison
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          I know you’re either a gamer with a nasty mean streak always deliberately trying to wind people up, or so far removed from reality, you need specialist treatment, but I’ll try to oblige you.

          The NHS is not for sale, but it CAN be run more efficiently. Personally, I don’t care less who provides the services so long as those who need the treatment get it free at the point of delivery, and as quickly as possible. If that means subcontracting some of its services out, then I haven’t a problem with it.

          The trouble with the NHS is that it became a sacred cow to those on the left who dislike any reformation, and farming out some services to companies who can work more efficiently is anathema. They’re quite content it seems for everyone to pay more taxes for inefficient ways of working, just to suit some outmoded political principle where everything must be state-owned.

          I have fought tooth and nail for the NHS, but I will not defend inefficient ways of doing things. Value for money must still be factored into the overall equation.

          • Pominoz
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 1:47 am | Permalink

            Tad,

            As usual you talk sense. Somehow, however, it is vital to take some form of action to establish a sense of value in what is delivered. For the patient to think “It doesn’t cost anything, so I might as well use it” is an invitation to use the service perhaps frivolously. For any member of the NHS staff to have the attitude as regards what they are delivering “You’re getting it free, so what do you expect” is equally disastrous.

            Clearly, on both sides, perhaps there is only a small percentage of individuals with these types of thought, But just one, is one too many.

            Health treatment offered by, not all, but a considerable number of countries around the world, Australia included, is more efficiently and effectively delivered than by the NHS. I am sure that in most of these countries, there is an inbuilt sense of value, on the part of the medical staff and the patients. A modest fee to see a doctor, instils this sense of value and I am sure that the ‘bright sparks’ can come up with a system which protects the extremely vulnerable. The other side of the coin is to look at just how part of the vast sums poured into the NHS are being wasted. Too much administration? Over-prescription of medications? Insufficient authority at the point of delivery?

            I am not asking the be challenged on any of these points – I do not have knowledge of the precise situation. But – a sense of value is key. Study what is going on elsewhere in the world. Use the good bits and discard the bad. Everyone knows the NHS can be much better than it is – and the worse it becomes, the more trained staff will opt to work in their chosen field in an alternative country, where they would undoubtedly be welcomed with open arms. The downward spiral would accelerate. Action from the very top is vital right now.

          • Tad Davison
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 11:27 am | Permalink

            Pominoz,

            I agree. Things need to change, including attitudes, and there’s nothing wrong with getting the best bits from elsewhere and weaving them into our NHS. But inflexibility, obstinacy, and intransigence often stands in the way.

            It’s a bit like our state school system. Public schools have the highest attainment levels, whilst state comprehensives often do poorly, so let’s run our state schools to the same standards.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

      Part of the evil plan to sell everything to Trump – hatched in 2016 !

    • libertarian
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      Les Grinds

      That would be the rich and powerful banks that funded the remain campaign , or maybe you were thinking of the big industrial organisations, that er also funded remain. Currently a multimillionaire hedge fund owner is trying to sue Boris , so you may have a point about that

      Martin in Cardiff

      “The UK Constitution says only one thing “Parliament Alone Is The Law”.”

      NO it doesn’t , we dont have a UK written constitution however a Parliamentary group has been trying to pull together all the conventions .

      This is the opening paragraph of their proposed written constitution

      “To recognise every citizen as an equal partner in government—at a local, regional, and national level”

      Furthermore the UK has put in place EU directives that did not get the approval of parliament

      From the parliament website

      “The EU has the authority to apply legislation in the UK”

      Interesting that people like Martin think they are smarter than “ordinary” people who would you know bring back hanging and flogging and ducking stools .

      Every single Remainer is like Martin just a Virtue Signaller, no idea why they want to be in the EU, no idea about international trade, no acquaintance with any facts , just endless look at me I’m nice and you are all gammon bigot old dead people .

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

        OoOOOooh! We appear to have a mind reader amongst us…

        • libertarian
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

          MiC

          Hilarious, every single time you are proved wrong and you answer with a fatuous unrelated personal attack. You dont like it when its done to you so dont do it to others

          Not least of which having told us that you “know” people would bring back ducking stools , you accuse me of mind reading. Well theres no way to be polite about this Martin, I’m afraid youre not very bright

      • Tad Davison
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Spot on lib!

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

          Agreed +1

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      Len – couldn’t you even attempt to write without implied insult of our host? You can disagree, but have you no concept of courtesy as you’re a visitor?

      This is Sir John Redwood’s own blog (see the website title). You don’t have to read it. He doesn’t have to publish your offensive posts. That he does shows he’s a better man than you.
      (Or possibly he wishes to remind us how bigoted the other side can be and how deeply they are in thrall to the nonsense of project fear. What you say shows indeed you are. If I were using your own terms, I’d call YOUR words ‘unmitigated Facebook-inspired drivel’)

    • Original Richard
      Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

      The greatest danger for the NHS is that it will be sold (to put it in remainer terms) to the US by the EU in a trade deal in exchange for cheaper tariffs on German cars and French wine.

      We will have no veto when trade deals becomes either an EU competence or is decided by QMV, or worse still if we are stupid enough to vote for the EU’s colonial status WA treaty to which there is no lawful exit according to the AG.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Exactly right:-
    Either Parliament gets us out soon, or the sovereign people will demand a different Parliament. As they did in the EU elections with the Conservatives coming 5th with 9% thank to May and the dire (and very large) Libdim wing of the party.

    As you say:- We do not elect the judges. We cannot sack them at an election if they cease to please.

    This is indeed the case and the legal profession, as a whole, are very, very pro EU. Perhaps in gratitude to it as it has created so much (largely parasitic and economically damaging) work for them. This by bringing another level of legal complexity, ambiguity and court levels into being and giving the profession even more powers to largely parasite off the productive.

    Judges, in my experience, tend to decided what they personally want to happen and then search through the laws to find some way (however flimsy and tenuous) to try to justify their judgement. A good example being when they idiotically overuled/rewrote the law over charges for applicants in employment tribunals.

    Rather like the speaker’s justification for changing ignoring precedent to allow MPs to vote to tie the government’s hands on the Brexit timetable:- “If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change.”
    Judges usually come up with something slightly less transparent (and more wordy) than that as justification but not much less transparent. Let’s us hope we get some sensible judges. I am not at all confident we will though.

    • James Bertram
      Posted September 1, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      Sir John, pretty disappointing that you censor comments that wish to highlight the extent and influence of freemasonry on our legal profession.

      Reply I know nothing about that topic and your piece offered no evidence. Please find some other way to pursue your interest.

      • James Bertram
        Posted September 1, 2019 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        Thank you for posting the above comment. It is appreciated.

  4. Ian Wragg
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    It would be interesting to know who is funding these court cases. Of course we will never know as only Leave organisations are challenged. I thought Parliament made the laws not judges.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

      “I thought Parliament made the laws not judges” why did you think that?

      Both parliament and judges make the laws. Many of them hugely damaging and insane. Miliband’s Climate Change act (that only a handful of MPs failed to vote for) and all the recent tax to death budgets as some of the most insane example recently.

      Judges love the human rights act as vague things like “Respect for privacy and family life” or “No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion or age”. These can be stretched to mean almost anything that the judges want them to.

      We can at least elect a new parliament unlike judges. Not that (as we see currently with the many remoanes &traitors in parliament) they will actually do what they promised to.

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      That’s what is supposed to happen, however, the politicians and legislative draughtsmen these days are so inept that most new laws have more holes than a Swiss cheese. That is where the challenges and the interpretation of the judges come from. The judges have to try to decide what was Parliament’s intention, whereas a properly drafted piece of legislation would leave no doubt. All big money for the lawyers of course and grist for the mill for trouble seekers. As for the funding, I think you can see where certain parties are and I believe a lot of it is not British money.

      • JPM
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        Graham, what you describe as judges’ role in the application of ill-drafted laws, namely trying to perceive parliament’s intentions, may well be current practice, but it is not their role.

        The role of the judiciary is to apply the law as delivered. If parliament delivers poor laws with unforeseen consequences, then judges are free to highlight the inconsistency or the faulty logic.

        Beyond that, judges are turning themselves into legislators.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      Ordinary people like me are funding them with our donations, Ian.

      You show your ignorance too. England is a common law jurisdiction, and judges from the High Court upwards make that common law, case law, or precedent, as it is called. Parliament makes statute law.

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        It’s not the courts job to interfere in Parliamentry procedure.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

          They never have and never will.

      • dixie
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        Except since 1972 EU law, which is not common law, overrides UK law and so our Parliament.

  5. Garland
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    Sinister hysterical rubbish. The courts have never interfered with Brexit. The Miller case simply involved the courts protecting our sovereign Parliament from executive whim. The current litigation is about stopping our sovereign Parliament being shut down by executive whim. The courts are impartial and it is a disgrace that you try to discredit them. If Corbyn was ramming through policies without the approval of our sovereign Parliament the way Johnson is now, you’d be up in arms. But you’re not, because you are not a man with principles. You care only about power and force and getting your own way

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      “The courts are impartial” sure they are!

      I suppose you thing the BBC is impartial, fair and balanced too do you?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        Judges are a subset of lawyers they tend to have a group think as most groups do. Some are excellent many are not.

        Just as the staff at the BBC are nearly all left wing, pro EU art graduates with little understanding of science, business or economics and who have all swallowed the climate alarmist exaggerations whole.

        Lawyers, Judges, Bureaucrats, Teachers, Politician all have group think that is hugely different to the view of the people as a whole. Usually the latter are right on average far more often. Perhaps because as a group they have far wider experience of the world. Than the above group who surround themselves with people similar to themselves.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:13 am | Permalink

          Listen to some of the interviews with the recent retired Cabinet Secretaries. They are virtually identikit people – all wrong headed on the EU and very many other issues. Totally out of touch with reality on the ground with little understanding of the private sector (that has to compete to survive) and with almost no grasp of the mood of the voters.

          • Andy
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

            Or – these people, who reached the top of their profession, are right and you are wrong.

            Which is more likely? Hmmm.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

            Few sensible people who listen to the stuff they usually come out with would think that. Few who watch how incompetently and wastefully run the civil service NHS, the Education system, the infrastructure, the tax system, the benefit system ….. indeed almost all of the state sector is would thinks that senior civil servants were right about very much. Or perhaps (if they are occasionally right) then they are completely incompetent at implementing anything.

          • libertarian
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

            Andy

            Yeh mate, like you they are wrong, they are simply bureaucrats, civil servants

            None of them have a days experience of import/export, product design, product shipment, international trade in fact trade of any kind. Its why they produce hysterical predictions based on nil understanding of business and how it works

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      No, the Courts aren’t impartial. They reflect the views of the individual judges and their desire to shape the world as they think it should look like.

      Do you think the ECJ is impartial? Pleeeeeze!

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        Evidence, please. Quote from a case where the judge has done this.

        You can’t, can you?

    • BJC
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      Garland

      Mr Johnson is not “ramming through policies”, he is proroguing in order to hold a Queen’s Speech. If you or others believe the hysteria that there are alternative intentions, that is your prerogative. Whether you are correct, of course, is impossible to prove and it doesn’t change the fact that we have a new government, haven’t had a Queen’s Speech in a long time and in order to do so Parliament is prorogued. Of course, most of the prorogation period will be take up with conferences, anyway.

      Sir John has not questioned the impartiality of the Courts, but the validity of our lawmakers (Parliamentarians) seeking to empower them to overrule a valid government decision. The role of the judiciary is to carry out evidence-based administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law (enacted by said lawmakers), not to decide when or where it should be applied. Prorogation, of course, is not unlawful.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      “If Corbyn was ramming through policies without the approval of our sovereign Parliament the way Johnson is now, you’d be up in arms.”

      Like what?

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      How is it hat certain cases (pro remain) are rushed through in days, whilst others, notably pro Brexit ones are held up for months in the legal weeds. Impartial, my foot.

    • Robert mcdonald
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:16 am | Permalink

      The prorogation happens annually to allow party conferences to take place. 4 days less sitting time after 3 years of spin and bluster trying to block the democratic choice of the people.

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Truth be known the public are just glad to see the deadlock being broken. Boris’ support is soaring in the polls.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Don’t you understand that Parliament has already approved the policy of leaving the EU with or without a deal? Parliament had opportunities to make sure that we would only leave with a deal, and never leave without a deal, but MPs chose not to make use of those opportunities at the right time. Why do you think that was? Because the House of Commons is full of lazy and inattentive, and perhaps even stupid, people who have only just realised what they previously approved?

      • Tad Davison
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        You’re dead right Denis, and that’s what worries me most – the lack of calibre and intellect amongst some MPs.

        Lazy, inattentive, and Stupid – all three apply – but I would also add ‘arrogant’ and ‘dismissive’ in a lot of cases.

        Sometimes, I wish I could breach confidences, alas I can only allude to my first-hand experiences by totally agreeing with you.

    • steve
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      Garland

      “The courts are impartial….”

      What utter rubbish !

      “The Miller case simply involved the courts protecting our sovereign Parliament from executive whim.”

      Again, rubbish. The miller case was about a narcissist and social crawler making a name for herself.

      Though from what I have read she receives more death threats than anyone else who’s attempted to undermine the democratic will of the nation.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

        You state your last sentence as if you think that it’s a good thing, and also make a false accusation against her.

        • steve
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

          MiC

          “You state your last sentence as if you think that it’s a good thing”

          Not really, I’m neutral on the matter of her allegedly receiving such threats. Ye reap what ye sow, as it were.

      • Jiminyjim
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        She claims to have death threats but none have been investigated by the Police as she apparently has failed to produce any evidence.
        I would have respect for her if she was honest that her objective has always been to stop Brexit. She continues to claim that she ‘respects’ the referendum. To which I can only say that I ‘respect’ her wealth that enables her to interfere with our democracy

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      Garland
      Remainer = offensive (also ill-informed and blinkered)

      Nothing new there, then.

  6. Mark B
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    No one is above the law, not even Her Majesty. That is what I have always been led to believe. If the government have broken some law then, it should be held to account. The proroguing of parliament is a natural occurrence and, I believe that Vichy Remain are using it as a means to further delay, or prevent altogether, the democratic will of the people.

    I have long argued that the only solution is to hold a general election with strong Leave candidates. Only a Leave parliament will get us out, nothing else.

    My concern, like many others, is that the PM will try to ram through the WA minus the Backstop. It is difficult to see how as this would mean the EU capitulating and selling the RoI out. The PM cannot bring it before parliament a fourth time with the Backstop or a variation of it. I do not believe a ‘time limited’ version would work as I feel both sides would seek to keep on extending it.

    Parliament in all this is the problem. They never wanted to Leave the EU and, therefore, do not represent the people in this.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      The issue I have with a General Election is the Brexit Party will split the Leave vote.

      Leave stands a better chance with a second referendum if we have to have a plebiscite

      • Mark B
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

        Not if there is an agreement.

        • Simeon
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

          Good evening.

          BJ and Cummings would be eating a whole lot of humble pie, not to mention executing a radical change of policy, if an agreement were to be reached. Also, propping up an ideologically bankrupt Conservative party that is likely irretrievably rotten seems like a bad idea. The Brexit Party might be the basis of a better political party than those presently on offer, but as yet doesn’t appear to be looking beyond achieving the moment of Brexit.

          A GE at this stage would be messy. The Conservative party might be in its death throes, but BJ will persuade the more credulous to back him, and that will split the Leave vote. Maybe if BJ could stay in power long enough he could definitively demonstrate his establishment instincts, and finally kill off the Tories as a popular political force. But I’m not sure he’ll get the chance. I think for tactical purposes, as much as it might stick in the craw, the second referendum is the best bet for achieving Brexit – with a GE to follow (though God alone knows what that would look like). Putting a positive spin on it, a second referendum offers the chance to have a resounding endorsement of a clean and proper Brexit. But there are no guarantees. Dangerous times.

    • Simeon
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      Good morning,

      One might suggest that the logic of our kind host’s post is exactly this; a new leave Parliament to deliver Brexit, because the present one will not. This means a GE. Will Sir John accept this logic? Or, when will he?

      The question is whether this Parliament might offer the electorate a referendum with the option to deliver a clean and proper Brexit. How ironic if a Corbyn coalition rescues Brexit by averting the disaster of the WA, and enables the electorate to demand, specifically and unmistakably, a clean and proper Brexit!

      This is not to suggest that I trust any of the MPs opposed to no deal. But if they are the enemies of BJ and his WA, then my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      The rich are above the law. laws are designed to rule over/control the poor.

  7. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    What a fantastic post John. I will be sharing this with friends and family. I hope the courts see sense on this. Its a shame the likes of Gina Miller can find nothing better to do with their money expect to try and dictate to the test of us and enforce their will. A Democratic decision has been made by the public and their will must be honoured. If not then we cease to be a democratic nation in the eyes of the world. I no longer wish to be dictated to by the French and the Germans.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Exactly. What is really a denial of democracy is for circa 85% of MP’s to stand on a manifesto promising to deliver Brexit when about half of these are clearly just trying to prevent it anyway they can.

      Major to join in the legal action it seems. It seems he is content to be remembered for the ERM disaster (not even an apology despite all the businesses, homes and lives needlessly destroyed), being a dreadful and dishonest PM, pushing the dire Maastricht treaty though against the will of the people, then getting destroyed in an election against Blair (thus destroying the conservative party for many terms – only just about recovering now). Now he wants to try to destroy the party again and give us Corbyn and Venezuela II.

    • Fred H
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:50 am | Permalink

      She and her support are able to spend money with the intention of making more money by staying in the EU.

  8. Everhopeful
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    But WHY are Remoaners prepared to throw away everything for the EU?
    Oh…or are we witnessing another pantomime?
    It all makes me feel ill.

    We saw nothing like this when many did not want the Iraq war . Surely that was more important than trade which is all the EU is supposed to be about? Has anyone ever taken govt to court to stop a war?

    We are still fiddling around with EU defence cooperation too which seems odd. But then the sneaky way our defences have been dismantled reveals yet another secret long term plan to sell us out.

    And another confusing thing….as far as I knew, anyone working for a foreign power was considered a criminal of the worst order. So why are these people being tolerated?

    • margaret howard
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      Everhopeful

      The EU had nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the disasters that ensued in the Middle East afterwards.

      It was the US along with our help that illegally invaded and destroyed that country.

      Many EU countries just tried to give shelter to the millions of terrified citizens who fled from this tragedy.

      • steve
        Posted September 1, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        margaret howard

        “It was the US along with our help that illegally invaded and destroyed that country.”

        Incorrect. It was with Blair’s help, not ours.

        • margaret howard
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

          steve

          “Incorrect. It was with Blair’s help, not ours.”

          “British Parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq was given by the elected members of the British House of Commons to Tony Blair’s government on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in a series of two votes, on 18 March 2003.”

          • libertarian
            Posted September 2, 2019 at 7:17 am | Permalink

            Maggs

            You mean the same type of Parliamentary process that made Boris PM…. Ah I see

  9. Amanda
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Why are the judges interfering where they have no jurisdiction. The people have the ultimate sovereignty – that has always been an important part of the ‘sovereignty’ debate, and was the cause of the fight between Charles I and The People. Let’s not go there again.

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      Because they have been asked to. Anyone with lots of money can do the same. It’s the ordinary Joe who cannot buy justice because he is feeding his family and paying his taxes.

  10. Shirley
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    The only way that Remainers can keep the UK in the EU on a permanent basis is to ban elections. If we do not leave on 31st Oct, then the Brexit Party will become the next government.

    Are Remainers so stupid as to think we will allow them to destroy democracy in the UK?

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      @shirley

      I think not. The Brexit party will split the Leave vote and we will get a “Progressive Alliance”

    • steve
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Shirley

      Yes Remainers are that stupid. The plebs think we have no gumption to fight them on the streets if necessary, and the political class know different but think they can run fast enough.

      How wrong they both are.

      Watch what happens if we get BRINO or A50 stopped…..there will be a reckoning ahead and the only way to prevent that is by having Farage in No 10 as quickly as possible. Otherwise it turns very nasty for the remainers.

      History repeats, just not necessarily in the same country.

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

      ”Ban elections….” Perhaps that’s what the EU masters would like. And, if we’re sold down the river with a barely altered ‘WA’ then they would have power over us, and lots of it. Who’s to say what they might do?

  11. Everhopeful
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    How come Robin Tilbrook’s legal challenge regarding Mrs M’s extension was dismissed out of hand and took ages to come to court…yet Remoaners get heard immediately with great MSM attention?
    Silly question!

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Very good question

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      Perhaps SIR JOHN, could enlighten us?

    • The Prangwizard
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      It’s called systemic corruption. Elites, judiciary, academia, et al..

  12. jerry
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    “The Remain MPs just do not understand this central idea of people’s sovereignty.”

    Oh come off it Sir John, after this weeks announcement from No.10 it’s clearly not parliament who has a problem understanding parliamentary democracy, when was there a referendum asking How the UK should leave the European Union, as you say the people elected a parliament (in 2017), not the executive to make such decisions.

    If the executive want to over-ride Parliament then they need to do one of two things; 1/. call a referendum and thus return the decision directly to the people or 2/. declare a state of emergency -as Heath did in Jan. 1974- but even then the executive would be limited by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

    Sees to me that (some) Brexiteers do not like the very democracy they wanted returned to the UK, simply wishing to replace one autocracy with another, to over ride the 2017 wishes of the people. Stop trying to defend this indefensible abuse of the very democracy you wanted, the UK Parliament being able to make or remove ots own laws, taxes etc.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      But Jerry Parliament is not making those decisions on how to leave.
      After three years of endless debate they have made no decision.

      So it seems you want another referendum on how we leave.
      What would the ballot paper say?

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        And while we’re arguing Remain are winning. We’re still in the EU !

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:59 am | Permalink

      There was never a question of how to leave, it was simply leave nor not. Only after the loss of the referendum did the Remoaners start to invent new ways to stop what they don’t like. Parliament has been debating this matter for 3 years and we are not one step further forward, so why does an extra 4 days loss of debate make any difference? They could be there until the next GE and still be holding things up. But be certain, that election will come at some stage and there will be a major backlash against those trying to thwart the referendum. 17 million voters and 63 percent of leave constituencies is more than enough to clear them out.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        We are many steps forward. We know now – beyond any doubt – that any form of Brexit is worse than the status quo. We know every form of Brexit makes us poorer than we would be without Brexit. We know every form of Brexit reduces our influence. We know every form of Brexit harms our children. We know every form of Brexit damages our union. We know all this.

        And this is why MPs are struggling with Brexit. Whatever colour they are their instincts are usually to want to make the country better. And they know Brexit makes the country worse.

        Look at you lot. The only way Brexit now makes sense is if you brand everyone else a traitor. Former PMs, loyal long-standing Conservatives, judges, the BBC, the CBI, Unions, big business, Gary Lineker, etc. Only if all these people are traitors does your Brexit make any sense.

        You have all gone collectively bonkers. It is very sad.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

          How can you keep saying ” We know….” when all you are doing is guessing the future.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

          Yes, Andy, as I wrote earlier.

          Small children are absolutists in matters which are actually relative, and we find it funny, but amongst an infantilised electorate, that widespread failure of reasoning can be, and is being exploited ruthlessly by those who wish to take control.

          For instance, take capitalism. With such childlike minds, it’s easy to get them to accept that any proposed restraint upon it would be “Marxism”. Just a moment’s thought reveals the silliness of such a claim though, because the purest, most absolute form of capitalism is slavery. So it’s clear that normal people already accept that capitalism must be restrained by law, and the debate in a civilised society is about the nature and the extent of that restraint, not about the fact of it..

          The central aim of both the Labour movement and the European Union is the emancipation of the ordinary people. They have that aspiration in common, and it is the polar opposite of the ends of the new Right.

          Underdeveloped minds, which deal only in cartoon caricatures, are easy prey to those who wish to keep them in servitude, and we see a whole industry devoted to pushing caricatures and distortions for that purpose.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

            The main aim of government is to make their citizens better off.
            The EU is failing.

          • Tad Davison
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

            What does that say about the pro-EU CBI who wants to keep the freedom of movement thus suppressing wages with a surfeit of cheap labour, and tax-payer funded in-work benefits to top-up the wages of the poorer members of our community just to assist and subsidise corporate profitability?

        • libertarian
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

          Andy

          You dont know any of those things, you made them all up . Show us the evidence, or even just give me a plausible scenario of why any of those things will happen

          • steve
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

            libertarian

            “You [Andy] dont know any of those things, you made them all up . Show us the evidence”

            You’ll have a long wait. He never responds to challenge because he’s FOS, which is why he talks it.

        • Jiminyjim
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

          What’s really sad, Andy, is that you never respond to any challenge, you just go quiet or simply issue insults. Firstly, what is good about remaining, as opposed to your version of what is bad about leaving. And secondly, what do you mean by Remain? Euro? Loss of our so called ‘Rebate’? Ever closer federalisation? Loss of control over national budgets and common taxation? Loss of veto and ‘Qualified Majority Voting’ on everything? Continued expansion of EU into the Near East? EU Army?

          • Tad Davison
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

            He’s a gamer. Just a wind-up merchant who freely uses this platform to deliberately insult pensioners on a regular basis whom he blames for the vote to leave the EU. It’s a perverted pleasure.

          • Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

            Why doesn’t Andy reply to any of those questions posed by Jiminyjim? We know, don’t we?

            It’s because she/he has no idea of the answers. She/he reads Facebook and Twitter and believes every word. Yes it certainly IS sad that there is someone bitter and lonely out there who can only feel fulfilled when they’re being abusive.

            (Andy – I, for one, don’t believe you are a well-educated, high earner and family man. And I’d say most of us have your measure.)

        • BJC
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 7:50 am | Permalink

          I appreciate that it’s probably difficult to understand, but we would apply the exact same arguments to the EU, Andy. The salient difference with Brexit, of course, is that we will hold the power to correct any perceived issues.

          If we Remained we would be working within the framework imposed by the EU, which restricts our efforts because their priority is that the four “freedoms” are protected.

          Of course, any freedom (i.e. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants) that’s legislated is no longer a freedom, but Remainers haven’t worked that one out yet.

    • Robert mcdonald
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      The people elected a parliament in 2017 when the two main parties both clearly stated in their manifestos that they would implement the choice of the people in the 2016 referendum .. to leave. The use of the term HOW is remoanese for “let’s find some words that can be played with to suggest we should remain.”

    • BJC
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      May I suggest that Parliament has already provided us with a referendum on how we should Leave the EU?

      Cast your mind back to the debates about holding a referendum.

      Did Parliament endorse the referendum questions? Yes
      Was the referendum subject to an offer of an arrangement from the EU if we left? No.
      Was the referendum subject to an offer of a FTA from the EU if we left? No
      Would a referendum to delegate the decision to the people create a risk that would result in Brexit? Yes.
      Did Parliament vote in favour of holding a referendum anyway? Yes.

      In other words, Parliament was oblivious to the fact that simply legislating to hold a referendum was also agreement to leaving without a deal, because there was nothing else on the table. Parliament hadn’t attached any importance to seeking a deal prior to their vote, neither had they made the referendum decision conditional on anything else, and subsequently endorsed their decision by enshrining Art50, deal or no deal, in law.

      The Executive is not overriding Parliament, but attempting to deliver on what it has enshrined in law. The fundamental problem is a fickle and obstructive Parliament that has failed in its duty at every turn.

  13. Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Enoch said ‘you do violence to our language calling these assemblies a ‘parliament’. Parliament is Sovereign and if it is not Sovereign it’s not ‘Parliament’. The True Sovereigns in Britain are her people. It’s our sovereignty that Parliament exercises for a species time and MUST hand back to us. It has no locus to retain or disperse our Sovereignty. During the Maastricht debates the meaning of the word Sovereignty was disputed with Remainers claiming that we could ‘pool our Sovereignty’. Gina Miller is an alien. Her roots are not our roots and she will be astonished once the Anglo Saxon plants his feet and speaks .. Boris will have no second chance. It’s 31st October to deliver our Parliament back into our Sovereign hands – my feet are planted and I’m thinking ‘fair’.

    • Andy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      Parliament is the High Court of Parliament, that is the Crown, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled. It isn’t just the Commons and it is time that the Commons recognised and respected the other parts of the Constitution.

      • Posted September 1, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

        You have to appreciate that The Lords owned massive swathes of the U.K. and employed most of the population. They therefore along a different alignment, represented the interests of the British people, and as such were useful. Those Lords have been banished and we have instead a House of Failures who own nothing, employ nobody and represent only their own interest. As such only the House of Commons now represents the People. In fact it’s time the Lords were either reinstated in the House or the doors to that place were closed. However you are correct that it’s time the Commons and Government respected our Constitution and accepted that they cannot use the Royal Prerogative to destroy the Royal Prerogative – as Heath, Major etc did, and in doing so deprived us all of our birthright and natural citizenship and handed us over en mass and without authority to be citizens of a foreign and aggressive, dictatorial (as has been proven in recent weeks) power.

    • Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

      Well said, Ms Atkinson. You got the Kipling allusion exactly right with GM!

    • margaret howard
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

      Lynn Atkinson

      “Gina Miller is an alien. Her roots are not our roots and she will be astonished once the Anglo Saxon plants his feet and speaks .. ”

      But so is the Queen. Her family came from Hanover not all that long ago and are therefore as much aliens as is Gina Miller.

      According to your ‘roots’ theory she isn’t fit to represent you true Anglo Saxons (although admittedly Hanover is in the German state of Lower Saxony)

  14. Julie Williams
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    Remain MPs from the Conservative and Labour parties know full well that they are going against the promises (manifesto) that they made regarding the referendum.
    They know that they are acting in bad faith hence all the rhetoric about “Parliamentary Sovereignty” and the Mp’s moral duty.
    It’s about time that Edmund Byrne’s nonsense was knocked on the head, our democracy was very different in the 1790’s: rotten boroughs, no “universal suffrage”, patronage and only a rudimentary form of party politics.
    Once again, it’s the weekend so let’s be optimistic.We all knew that there was an increasing gap between the wishes of the electorate for a stable society and the imposition by successive governments of social experiments aided by like-minded judiciary, educators and media.
    We all know that the need for reform in government: the House of Lords, expenses and by-elections for “switchers” has been judged or forgotten.
    Not any more: this is the electorates chance to do something: as long as we remain energised and stop voting as a tribe.

    • Julie Williams
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      For judged please read fudged!

      • Julie Williams
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

        And for Byrne read Burke.
        I must have a serious word with my spellchecker.

  15. Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Yes, so much deception around the EU, and a plot worthy of a great spy novel.
    How did it happen?
    A step at a time – one lie at a time, so as not to cause concern, until we were locked in firmly.
    Why did it happen?
    It happened because our leaders at the time, totally at the effect of union barons, saw the prosperity in Europe, and imagined we would be better off in it.
    What went wrong with Britain for this to happen?
    A lack of morals and national direction, a feeling of defeat – the rise of socialism.
    What went wrong with the EU dream?
    Incompetence, too much in a rush to fuse nations together that were incompatible in too many ways, including financially. Undemocratic, dictatorial, economically inept, interfering, but worst of all run by arrogant bullies.

    • IanT
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      A very good summary Bryan.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:38 am | Permalink

      Excellent synopsis Bryan, thank you

    • Mitchel
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      “What went wrong with Britain…?”

      The philosophical historian,Will Durant,is unfashionable these days(never having being a progressive positivist) but I believe his most famous quote is as apt as ever:

      “A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has first destroyed itself from within.The essential cause of Rome’s decline lay in her people and her morals.”

      Around a quarter of a century after (just about) seeing off the Hun Confederation,the Western Roman Empire disappeared.Around a quarter of a century after the end of the USSR,the modern west is falling apart.

      • margaret howard
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        Did Will Durant mention that the Roman empire lasted for a thousand years? Longer than almost any other empire in history?

        And that fifteen hundred years after her fall our western European languages, laws, philosophy, way if life even, are still based on her examples. Not bad going.

        • Posted September 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink

          The point here is still valid – that the Roman empire had become rotten from within before they were overrun – but yes their influence was a lasting one…

          Britain though has had a far more lasting influence on the world even, but it is doubtful it will survive the treachery of those that sell us out alongside the way our morals are perverted through msm and ‘fairness’.

          • Mitchel
            Posted September 1, 2019 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

            Far too soon to say that!

        • libertarian
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:43 am | Permalink

          Margaret Howard

          “the Roman empire lasted for a thousand years? Longer than almost any other empire in history?”

          Built entirely by military conquest and slavery …. thought you were against such things Maggie

        • Mitchel
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

          Margaret,

          The Eastern empire outlasted the Western empire by a 1000 years ending in 1453 (from memory).However,it was a theocratic despotism-very powerful and hugely influential- particularly on the early Islamic empires – and,of course,Russia-to this day.I’m not aware of any western state claiming to be influenced by it.

          If I were you I would get a decent history of the Byzantines-much more colourful than Game of Thrones or the your beloved Holy Roman (pretender) Empire

  16. Stred
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    If the Remainer parliamentarians, media and lawyers overturn the democratic vote, it may lead to unrest and violence, possibly with families splitting and the forming of resistance groups. The present hysteria is even annoying people who voted to remain.

    • steve
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Stred

      “…..it may lead to unrest and violence, possibly with families splitting and the forming of resistance groups.”

      No ‘may’ about it. It WILL hit the streets.

  17. Kenneth
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    What I found amusing was the idea that has been promoted on the BBC that the routine suspension of Parliament was a coup.

    How can a government perform a coup?

    • rose
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      Not so amusing is the way all the broadcasters are using the word “suspension” when they never have before. This is the usual manipulation of emotion by which they steer events rather than reporting them. It belongs with “cliff edge”, “crash out”, “hard Brexit” etc. – and, of course, “ram through” when there is no intention of passing anything. Maastricht was rammed through. Exit on March 29th and now October 31st was not rammed through: it was voted for overwhelmingly by MPs.

  18. oldtimer
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    In the original case brought by Gina Miller the Supreme Court ruled the sources of the money needed to fight the case should remain secret. At least that was my reading of it at the time. No reason was given for this ruling.

    We now see the instant appearance of groups of protesters in widespread locations. No doubt social media is a significant enabler of this. Nevertheless many appear kitted out with EU insignia, flags, banners, berets and the rest. Some in London are said to be paid to do so (echoing what has been observed in the USA). All this costs money.

    Should we not know who is bankrolling these activities? Is it subscription based? Is it paid for by wealthy individuals? Or is it paid for by organisations; if so which ones and how are they funded? Political parties are required to declare their funding and it’s sources. Should not the same rules apply to political campaigns conducted outside the established political structures?

    • Kathleen P
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      A very important point. The sums involved must be vast. This is a very easy way for rich people and institutions to undermine a sovereign nation. The Government must find out who is funding these protests because it is a clear and present danger to our democracy if outsiders are trying to influence matters here to the point of civil disobedience and possible violent insurrection. I hope the security services are on top of this.

      • tim
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        WHAT IF THE SECURITY SERVICES ARE ORGANISING THIS!

        • sm
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

          Whose security services would that be?

          Mr Johnson’s, Mr Putin’s, Mr Trump’s or – as doubtless some will be posting elsewhere – Mr Netanyahu’s?

    • Pominoz
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      You raise very interesting points, oldtimer.

      • Jiminyjim
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

        Sir John, we need your help on this most important point!

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      VERY IMPORTANT POINT. MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY YES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WE SHOULD KNOW.

      • What Tiler
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Usually you’ll find the caps lock key to the left hand side of your keyboard, please use it to disengage permanent caps mode.

  19. GilesB
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    I agree with all this.

    Except one point. ‘The MPs keep their jobs for as long it pleases the voters, who decide at election and by election time if their Parliament is exercising their sovereignty in the way they wish‘.

    MPs have to be kept to their manifesto. They cannot simply ignore, or indeed actively oppose, a major manifesto policy and survive unchallenged until the next election. There has to be a right of recall. It wasn’t previously necessary because honourable members would resign their seat before such action. Today they are not honourable and have no shame.

    Also the selection/reselection process has to be open and transparent. Philip Hammond’s slimy attempt to get reselected by an inner canal behind closed doors is a particularly egregious example. But what else should we expect from dishonourable men if the rules allow it?

    • Pete S
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      Regina V Wheeler: the case about Labour not honouring their manifesto to hold a referendum. The judgement basically said a manifesto is not worth the paper it is written on.

      • GilesB
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:15 am | Permalink

        The law needs to be changed

        • steve
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 10:37 am | Permalink

          GilesB

          “The law needs to be changed”

          ……see John Bercow he’s good at that.

    • Sharon Jagger
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      Giles B

      I’m confused as to why, when an MP is de-selected by their constituents, although no longer representing their party: they are still an MP? This achieves very little, as they are still entitled to vote in Parliament.

      I believe that if an MP is deselected, he/she should no longer be an MP- they can then put themselves up for re-election at the next general election.

      • Dave Andrews
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:15 am | Permalink

        That depends on your viewpoint.
        For myself, I vote for the person, not the party, and expect him to act in the best interests of his constituency.

      • GilesB
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        I agree with you.

        Similarly when they deselect themselves by resigning the party whip they should automatically lose their seat and trigger a by-election at which they can stand as an independent or for a different party. It is total nonsense that a constituency can vote for a candidate selected by one party on its manifesto and end up being represented by an MP in a completely different party with a diametrically opposed manifesto. MPs in the past had the honour to resign their seat in these circumstances, today they don’t. The law and practice MUST be changed, otherwise voting is utterly meaningless

  20. GilesB
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Cabal. Although stinking inner city canal might be an appropriate metaphor too.

  21. acorn
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    A delegate is someone who is elected to represent and convey the views of others. They are merely elected to be the mouthpiece of their constituency and act only the way their constituents would want them to, regardless of their own opinion.

    So, if an MP’s constituents vote to remain, like Wokingham for instance, and the MP votes leave, how sovereign are the people then. Hypocrisy rules OK.

    Reply My constituents in 2017 gave me a large majority when I promised to vote for Brexit in Parliament. We do not know how my voters from West Berks and Wokingham voted in the referendum as the results were reported by Borough

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Whereas in my area acorn, there was a majority to leave the EU in the referendum and our MP is at the forefront of efforts to stop us leaving.
      What annoys me most about this behaviour is that this MP said in the election address leaflet we had posted through our door the complete opposite.
      Many people therefore voted for this MP on a promise which turned out to be completely false.

      • Shirley
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        In any other sphere, that would be counted as fraud, or obtaining votes via deception. No wonder politicians are not trusted. It’s time the electorate had the power to hold these dishonest politicians to account.

  22. John Westlake
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Why are the law courts involved at all? What law has been broken, by whom?

    • Brenda
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      We dont know what law has been broken, that is what the courts will tell us. What do you think courts are for?

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      Indeed. I yearn for the days when the House of Lords acted as our highest court. We should have an inquiry into whether or not The Supremes are an improvement. They’re almost certainly more expensive.

      • Mitchel
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

        They’ve never been the same since Diana Ross left.

  23. Kenneth
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Let me just get this straight.

    We have a Parliament which has legislated for us to leave the eu at the end of October.

    The government then makes it clear it will abide by the will of Parliament and duly leave on that date.

    Outrage! Shout some remainers.

    The government then suspends Parliament, this being a routine, albeit overdue procedure.

    Coup! Shout some remainers.

    So they are complaining about a government that is abiding by the law and the will of parliament and is following traditional convention.

    You couldn’t make it up. Yet, the remainers do seem to be making things up all the time.

    • Sharon Jagger
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      Kenneth

      In a nutshell!

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Bear in mind that one leaving date has passed already at the behest of Remain.

  24. Pete S
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Hansard 25thJuly, about line 420: JRM to VV After the Labour Chief whip had confirmed that Labour are going to have a conference.

    The issue of Prorogation is absolutely marvellous, because the hon. Lady
    asked for a new Session and asked when this Session would end, and then
    asked me to promise that we would not prorogue. We cannot have both,
    because we cannot get to a new Session without proroguing.

    There you have it Labour asked for a NEW session.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      What next? Will they demand some form of withdrawal agreement with the EU while vowing to oppose any WA brought back by the government? Oh, they’ve done that too!

  25. StephenJ
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    In your penultimate sentence Sir John, you suggest that all MP’s have to do is vote according to their promises if they want to avoid the ire of the electorate.

    Glad to hear that you are so relaxed about the distinct possibility that your leader may well sign up to the Selmayr treaty, and call that Brexit.

    It isn’t, and not only has he said that, but so has parliament on three occasions. I suspect that following an extended period of turd polishing, he might just try and get away with it, for the sake of the party…

    … Bugger the electorate.

  26. Martin in Cardiff
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Small children are absolutists in matters which are actually relative, and we find it funny, but amongst an infantilised electorate, that widespread failure of reasoning can be, and is being exploited ruthlessly by those who wish to take control.

    For instance, take capitalism. With such childlike minds, it’s easy to get them to accept that any proposed restraint upon it would be “Marxism”. Just a moment’s thought reveals the silliness of such a claim though, because the purest, most absolute form of capitalism is slavery. So it’s clear that normal people already accept that capitalism must be restrained by law, and the debate in a civilised world is about the nature and the extent of that restraint, not about the fact of it..

    The central aim of both the Labour movement and the European Union is the emancipation of the ordinary people. They have that in common, and it is the polar opposite of ends of the new Right.

    The undeveloped mind, which deals only in cartoon caricatures, is easy prey to those who wish to keep them in servitude, and we see a whole industry devoted to pushing caricatures and distortions for that purpose.

    Sovereignty is also relative.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      The Labour movement and the European Union do not have the same aim. That’s why true socialists like Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner have opposed it.
      I see the European Union as smack bang right wing, not about the emancipation of the ordinary people, but more to do with the Kalergi Plan.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        They do have the same aim, but envisage perhaps different means to their shared end.

    • Fred H
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      Martin….’emancipation of the ordinary people’.

      I’m still laughing.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        OK, in what way does a law saying that dealers cannot sell you contaminated food, or that your employer must not endanger your life, or that your children’s paddling water at the seaside must not contain sewage restrict your freedom, for instance?

        You can’t name a single European Law that does, can you?

        I surmise that you haven’t been able to do much else in life either.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

          How will you be successful selling contaminated food?
          It is a criminal offence to do so and has been since Victorian times.
          Injuring or killing your employers has been a criminal offence for decades in the UK
          Sewage in the sea in the UK was restricted decades before the EU caught up.
          A quite ridiculous post from you Martin.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      MiC

      WINNER

      Most pompous , unthought out, hypocritical post of the year

      The only infantilised thinking Ive seen is you Andy and Newmaniac . You Martin have posted repeatedly unchecked, incorrect and factually wrong posts on nearly every subject you’ve touched .

      Capitalism ( a term invented by Marx) does not require or lead to slavery you buffoon . Trade , free markets ( what you call capitalism) is the buying or selling of goods or services ( what you are referring to is what Marx and subsequent socialists/lefties pretend is the case ie that some dark cabal of a few people own everything and control everything) . Normal people lol you mean those people like you who are entirely dependent on the benefits of free markets then believe that it ought to be stopped. There a really easy way to do that . Dont participate . The restraint placed on markets is in order to CONTROL to the benefit of selected organisations. Its the central principle of the EU. A PROTECTED market in a customs union . The EU backed by international banks and protecting large European Corporates from competition and enacting 12000 plus regulations to ensure the little guy doesn’t get to disrupt corporate markets . You do know that most regulations in the EU are initially suggested by big corporates ?

      Yeh the EU emancipated ordinary people by putting in place VATMOSS and killing 300,000 part time , single person traders. The EU emancipated the workers by having WORSE workers rights than the UK. The EU emancipated workers in Greece, Spain , Portugal and now France alright , by freeing them from any job at all . Theres 54% youth unemployment in southern Europe. ….., you sound like a student socialist

      • libertarian
        Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        * kiling 300,000 part time businesses*

    • Jiminyjim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      ‘Infantilised electorate’ M in C? Oh dear, now you’re suggesting that we haven’t your level of intelligence and should be denied the vote. You, Andy, MH etc reveal your contempt for others every time you post!

  27. Dominic
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Those who take an interest in such matters are conscious of the politicisation of our criminal justice system and those employed within it. Impartiality and the importance of apolitical values have become almost an anathema to those who have taken control of the CJS since 1997. That doesn’t bode well for Eurosceptics

    I believe the only sure fire solution to this entire farce is a GE with the hope of a majority government led by Johnson. I would like to see the BP make a breakthrough to displace the detritus party on the opposition benches.

    If Johnson can secure a majority his aim must be simple. It should be nothing less than the wholesale reform and then dismantling of the Labour-EU, liberal left construct that’s been constructed since 1973 and which accelerated following 1997.

  28. steadyeddie
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    I think what you present here is rather misleading. We did not need to take back control, we never lost it. We have a representative democracy where Parliament debates and decides- a referendum is, as Margaret Thatcher said, ‘a device of despots and dictators’. We elect MP’s every 5 years and if we do not like them, we vote them out. The referendum was presented as a take it or leave it in which approx. a third of the country said leave, a third said stay and a third chose not to express an opinion. That is not the way to make informed decision. It was an opinion poll and should be viewed as such. Before the referendum, polls suggested only 10% of the population considered Europe an important issue, certain elements have ramped it up for their own ends.

    • Shirley
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      In which case, every election is invalid and should be ignored. The EU referendum had the biggest turnout ever recorded. By your standards, nothing would ever be decided.

      Has it occurred to you that Parliament voted to ‘let the people decide’, they voted for A50 and the EU Withdrawal Act. Did the politicians know what they were voting for? If not, then they are unfit to be in Parliament. The fact they are being held to honour their own promises means democracy must prevail.

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Parliament debates and decides? Except where EU laws are concerned. They may be debated, but not rejected as they are superior to Britsh law and even if not debated go through anyway. Only approximately one thirds of EU laws imposed on this country have even been aired in Parliament, the rest go through on the nod without comment.That is where Parliament it not in control.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

        And yet when we ask you all to name any of these supposed mass of unwanted EU laws to which you object the only thing any of you ever come up with is VAT on tampons.

        Which law would you like Parliament to be in control of which it is not?

        • Narrow Shoulders
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

          VATMOSS

          The fact that all my cookies have had to be reaccepted in the last week

          Lightbulbs

          Our fishing rights

          Climate change……………

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

          Have you got a poor memory andy?
          You keep asking this question and you’ve had loads of replies giving loads of ecamples.

        • graham1946
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

          You’ve been given list after list. Pity you only have the retention of a goldfish and keep asking over and over the same silly thing. When are you going to give us the list of positives we have been asking for? You simply cannot is why you never have.
          Anyway I only said how it is done, not what I want. You simply are unable to stick to any point, it is like nailing jelly to a wall.

        • libertarian
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

          Andy

          Lots of us have written you list after list of the regulations that we want scrapped . Every time we do that you run away and hide, then a couple of weeks later you pop us and ask the same question all over again.

          The funny thing is that when you are asked to tell us why we should remain in the EU , you dont have one single answer

          Its almost as if you are a complete and total…..

          • Fred H
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

            wish it were a couple of weeks……he writes the rubbish every day.

        • a-tracy
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

          Who we pay benefits to and how long they have to have been resident and paying at least £65 per week in payroll taxes (our nlw) to become entitled e.g four years.

          That child tax credits should only be paid for children resident and costly to raise in the UK.

          That we shouldn’t have to pay made up EU taxes on uncharged tax on things such as drugs and prostitution, punishing the many for the bad habits of a few and leaving less for the UK government to spend on British citizens.

          We have no say in the EU, our MEPs have been marginalised for years, Cameron was ignored when he tried to put in his veto, Blair was made a joke of when he gave up our rebates for a reform of CAP which never happened.

          We don’t elect our EU commissioner, we had no say in the new President there was only one person in the vote…..

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      From someone who changes the rules on a referendum he took part in after the event.

      Don’t much like your idea of control then.

  29. Noneoftheabove
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    I have no further questions, Your Honour!

    Humour aside, one hopes that the decision made yesterday by the Court of Session in Edinburgh indicates the trend. If, against all logic, the Courts find for the Applicants, it will be the last nail in coffin of Democracy. In such a case I would have genuine fears for public order.

    • Pete S
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:38 am | Permalink

      The Tilbrook appeal was also thrown out. Which seemed to contradict the Miller judgement. The Miller judgement basically said, that if you are to modify law then you need Parl agreement first. Tilbrook pointed out that May did an agreement end asked for the law to be changed.

      Very dubious judgements being given by our courts.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

        The Miller Judgement was to me a blatantly ‘political’ judgement and was poorly reasoned. The majority judgement was waffly and poorly written whereas the minority opinions were far crisper and to the point.

        In the current case the argument is that the advice offered to Her Majesty is open to jurisdiction, but the actual act of prorogation, because it is a Prerogative power most certainly is not. What’s the better that they find that it is, no matter that the FTP Act specifically states that none of its provisions impinges in any way on Her Majesty’s Prerogative to prorogue.

  30. Ian Wragg
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    So the EU are about to cancel 31st October and give an indefinite extension to Article 50. If Boris falls for this the Tory Party is well and truly goosed.
    No doubt the Remainiacs will cite this as a reason not to leave. Brussels must be panicking.

    • Fred H
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      Then we must and can – GO NOW.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      In ‘Carry on up the Khyber’ our undercover heroes stumble across a harem, filled with beauties. ‘Hang on,’ says one, ‘it might be a trap!’ ”Let’s walk into it!’ says Private Widdle. An extension would be a trap, draped in a Tricoleur. Boris needs to stick to his guns and insist that negotiations are concluded before MPs return from the Naughty Step. I hope Boris is more Captain Keen than Private Widdle?

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      Is this yet another case of the EU breaking its own rules? I understood our PM had to ask for one and they said he would have to have a good reason for asking. Seems like it may now be imposed. We don’t want it, we don’t need it. We want to go latest 31st October, earlier if possible.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        You’re right. The UK has to request an extension – the EU can’t just decide without that request.

        And in any case the second extension is probably illegal if you read the EU Council Decision which underpins the extension.

    • Kris
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

      Ian Wragg- you say the EU is going to grant an extension to A50? but I really don’t don’t think this can be correct. From what I hear we are to leave, deal or no deal 31st Oct’- if only to get rid of Farage Widdecombe et al from the EU parliament- Thinking is the Europeans have had enough of UK sniveling at this stage and are only playing along so they don’t get blamed for the inevitable difficulties expected to follow. My guess is all talk about the 39 billion etc will come up again at some stage- but post 31st Oct

  31. sm
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    What deeply concerns me is the extreme and unparalleled (in my experience) current level of hysteria, whether from hitherto apparently rational politicians, ‘celebs’, lawyers or broadcast and written media journalists and members of the public posting on blogs such as this.

    Fanatics from both Leave and Remain sides are advocating violence, or using their wealth to impose their views through the courts, thus fostering the subjugation of Parliament to the legal system. In the latter case, there seems to be a sublime view that the judiciary are impartial, yet it is composed of human beings who are (like politicians and civil servants) just as susceptible to their own opinions and mores as are the rest of us, if better trained to mask them.

    In the past few weeks, I have learned of two middle-aged couples I know (one married, the other cohabiting, both with young children), who have broken up. In both cases, one partner has behaved in a manner that can only be described as raving mad – running up £thousands in debt, stealing personal property, making demonstrably false accusations to the police of physical assault or infidelity, fleeing the country with the children without notification etc. I see this as a mirror of what is happening in the world of politicians and the cognoscenti regarding Brexit.

    For more than 40 years, I have believed that the UK is a very uncomfortable fit within the EEC/EU developmental model, and therefore voted Leave. I would have been unhappy with a Remain victory, and would have argued my way with the best of them against further integration, but I don’t think that route would have led to the Apocalypse, any more than a prompt WTO Brexit will do.

    Could everyone just turn the temperature dial down to ‘cool’ please?

  32. Mrs Alison Houston
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Excellent summary.

  33. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    … and a different party in control of government. Enter BXP stage right.

  34. formula57
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Well said!

    There would be a constitutional crisis for real were the courts to attempt to gain ascendancy over Parliament in matters of parliamentary business.

  35. Leaver
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    A good thing in my opinion. One person purporting to represent the will of the people should not be allowed to overrule the will of parliament.

    Besides, as it’s a perfectly normal procedure apparently and nothing to do with Brexit, as our Prime Minister tells us, then surely ‘shock horror’, it’s not that big a deal anyway.

    It’s time the ERG stop voting down May’s deal and get on and do this, or we’ll end up with nothing at all. And I will not stand for. 17.4 million voted to leave. Stop this No Deal rubbish and get on with it.

    • Oggy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Mays deal as you call it, is not a deal it is a new treaty with the EU, and this treaty is revolving door remain. It is NOT Brexit as you well know.

      • Leaver
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

        I understand many have an objection to the Withdrawal Agreement (I refer to it as May’s deal as a shortcut, that’s all). But it is the bridge to Brexit.

        I fail to see how No Deal strengthens our hand myself.

        I’m also fed up with people calling me a remainer, just because I happen not to believe in No Deal. I voted leave. I am a leaver. Hence the name. Just because I happen not to mindlessly agree on everything, it doesn’t make me the enemy you know.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 1, 2019 at 7:10 am | Permalink

          But you need to think more logically.
          The Withdrawal Agreement is not a deal and it has been rejected three times by Parliament.
          There is little chance of even a backstop modified version getting Parliamentary approval.
          On the EU side there seems little chance of any movement in their position.
          So we are faced with leaving on 31st October as the law has been passed to do just that.
          A nice deal would be good but you have to face facts, a deal isn’t happening.

    • NigelE
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      You need to read the WA (or at least Martin Howe’s demolition of it in the Spectator). It absolutely negates Brexit.

    • Kathleen P
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      No, the ERG must continue to hold fast. Mrs May’s WA is NOT BREXIT. It is Brexit in name only and not Brexit in any meaningful way.

      We will not end up with nothing at all. If we have to have a General Election and a different Parliament made up of Brexiteer MPs, so be it but we will leave the EU, cleanly and properly.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Leaver,
      It wasnt just a few ERG MPs voting down the Withdrawal Agreement three times.
      It had one vote which broke records for the biggest ever defeat.
      But please stop referring to the Withdrawal Agreement as a deal.
      It is not.

      • Fred H
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        replace deal with steal.

      • Andy
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        The Withdrawal Agreement is Brexit. It is what you all voted for in 2016. Pathetic eh?

        • Fred H
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

          your WA is BREXIT couldn’t be further from the truth.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

          We voted to leave and the dreadful Withdrawal Agreement is nothing like leaving.
          Negotiated by remain fans.
          That is why its a failure

        • graham1946
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

          Yes it is, but then it was ‘negotiated’ (actually dictation taken) by Remainers so it is bound to be nonsense.

        • Jiminyjim
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

          Please do shut up endlessly repeating the same garbage, Andy, surely even you are bored with this now?

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      dear Leaver, you SHOULD SIGN as REMAINER?

      • Leaver
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        Why? I voted to leave. I want to leave, just not with no deal.

  36. Dominic
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    If this is true then Johnson must call a GE. An intolerable situation in which the British PM is being undermined by ex-PM in collusion with EU lackeys cannot be tolerated in a sovereign democracy –

    ‘Gordon Brown has said the European Union will next week “withdraw” the current deadline for Brexit and remove any excuse for no-deal on October 31.

    The former Labour Prime Minister said his belief was based on talks with EU leaders in recent days.

    In particular, he said he understood that France’s President Macron, the prime mover behind the October 31 deadline when it was agreed in April, no longer insisted upon it.

    He said President Macron had demanded a six month extension rather than a year to “sound tough” to a domestic audience six weeks before the European elections.

    Mr Brown said that although EU leaders could not unilaterally annul the deadline, he now expected them to say they were ready and willing to extend it, adding to the pressure on Boris Johnson to avoid no-deal.

    He said he hoped the move it would give MPs more time to pass emergency legislation to block no-deal when they returned to Westminster on Tuesday. ‘

  37. Fred H
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    My simple message to the Remain MPs, specifically those who took steps to thwart proper process to carry out the will of the people, is this, you are likely to face the voting judgement on the devious behaviour very soon. Hopefully memory will be clear when we are required to mark our cross on the ballot paper.

    • Oggy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      Oh don’t worry Fred we will not forget.

      The traitor remainer MP’s should be very very afraid. Their days in politics are growing very short indeed.

    • Kathleen P
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      The weakness in the system is the choice of candidate. I certainly would not want to vote for a Grieve or a Hammond or even a Rudd but if they are allowed to stand, what could I do if I wanted a Tory Government? The same goes for Labour MPs as well, of course. What do I do if I don’t like the candidate, if I am faced with only a Remainer?

      • GilesB
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        Stand yourself

      • Fred H
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        surely you will have a monster raving loony (apart from the candidates you are talking about).

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      Indeed. Very right-wing me will be cheering on George Galloway in his contest against Tom Watson MP.

  38. Martin in Cardiff
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    “The legal challenge weakened Parliament by placing the Courts above Parliament in an important matter of political judgement.”

    Nonsense John, as you know full well, Parliament is supreme. It quite properly simply reminded the Government, and not Parliament, that it was not above the law.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      The people are supreme.
      We vote MPs in and out of Parliament.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:08 am | Permalink

        Oh really. So why do we have privatised utilities, when polls say that over eighty percent of the people would prefer a single, publicly-accountable, not-for-profit supplier?

        The only thing written in the UK Constitution is Parliament Alone Is The Law.

        Not one word about the people. You have to go to France or to the US for that.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          Privatised utilities were a policy in the manifesto of past Conservative governments who were given a majority in a general election.
          The people got what they wanted.
          Vote for Corbyn and Labour they want to go back and re nationalise evetything.
          They should now have an 80% poll lead according to you martin.
          Oh…hang on…they are 10 point behind the Conservatives.
          How strange.

          • libertarian
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

            Edward2

            Good post

            Martin in Cardiff

            Good god man do you never ever check anything ?

            The You Gov polls on state ownership of water/energy utilities showed 53% in favour of state owned and 60% in favour of state owned railway ( hilarious as the state already own it) and 53% in favour of private ownership of telephone network and broadband

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

            I am getting increasingly irritated by the factually incorrect posts by lefty remainers.
            Both here and in the main stream media.
            At least on this great site we can challenge their nonsense with facts.

    • Oggy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Since when was proroguing illegal ?

  39. agricola
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    All you say is true and I find it a bit tedious that we are still having to emphasise the reality of sovereignty and the demand of the people in the referendum. Remainers cannot accept either the will of the people or the logic of the argument. They behave like children in a tantrum who have just been refused a bag of sweets. They are in need of being sent to their bedroom.

  40. Pud
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Remainers, when defending the chicanery of MPs trying to ignore the referendum result and stay in the EU, often claim “but I thought Leavers wanted parliament to take back control”. They are trying to be clever but end up looking foolish, as obviously any Leaver will not be satisfied by remaining in the EU.

  41. bella
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    If we have so much sovereignty then why do we not elect the judges, the Lords, the Civil Service chiefs, The Royals etc? – Answer: because there is no such thing as popular sovereignty in this country- not yet!

  42. Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    What this demonstrates is these people went into politics with their hubristic vanity believing that they know better than the rest of us. But we knew that already.

    Decades leading up to Brexit the waste of our money and poor services as evidenced by poor standings in international league tables in health services, including survival rates, education, broadband etc, disgraceful for a leading world economy, show what rubbish their judgement has been.

    If Central Office hold their nerve and understand we will not vote for them again, the ‘stables’ will finally be cleared and hopefully we will get fresh new talent.

    Regrettably history tells me not to hold my breath!

  43. robert lewy
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Sir John,

    What an excellent article
    Clarity flows from a cup that’s full.

  44. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I disagree about Parliament being above the courts (the law) Sir John.

    Parliament has a set of rules by which it must abide, the Speaker has already shown that these can subject to fast and loose interpretation which has set worrying precedents for future governments with slim majorities.

    If your administration has subverted protocol or procedures it does need to be held to account by the legislature. If not then the accusations of ignoring democracy or “tin pot dictator” go away.

    These challenges, while inconvenient, may improve your credibility if you have done nothing ultra viries.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      I do hope that when the courts decide it is on the letter of the law and not their interpretation of it.

      When pronouncing on Parliamentary procedure the courts should have power to decide but not to interpret.

    • 'None of the above'.
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Well said “Narrow Shoulders”, you sum up my views fairly well.
      If I must question a purpose or motive it is not that of the Judiciary, it is the applicants or Appellants.

      Did you see the ‘Reith’ Lectures? Johnathon Sumption had some very interesting views about the separation of law and politics, constitutions (written or otherwise) and the clamour to reform institutions when it is us (and not the institutions) that needs reform.
      Very thought provoking.

      • James1
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        The courts should have no say on the expediency or otherwise of political decisions, but only whether they are legal or not.

  45. Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Our politicians have lazily given away their powers to Brussels.
    But – an important “but” this – we have sat back and allowed them to get away with it. Parties have become huge machines which simply dictate what they want. The coming Party Conferences have become propaganda ventures – far too expensive for ordinary people either Labour or Conservative. We just do not feel represented. And a lot of people are very angry.
    Let us remember the EU is in no was a democracy. Never was, never will be. It is deliberately not based on the will of the people. Even old war horses like Angela Merkel have no real power compared with the vast bureaucracy and the five Presidents under the Commissioners.
    Think 1930s socialism…

    That is why Brexit is necessary, democratic and helpful. Bring it on!

  46. BJC
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    During the many decades of being attached to the EU, the skills-base required from our Parliamentarians has evolved. Instead of bringing experience from working in successful industries/business, they are theorists who rely on other theorists or self-serving “experts” to form their opinions. When they do pass legislation it’s based on the framework laid down by the EU; a framework formulated to achieve the objective of an EU superstate.

    This forms the basis of the problems faced by Remainers. They are represented by a disproportionate number of career politicians, lawyers and bankers who have never run anything more than a bath. They relish the theatre of debate and they’re very good at it, but this doesn’t automatically translate to possessing the necessary skills to understand or carry out their fundamental role, which is to manage the resources of UK plc.

    They simply cannot begin to imagine a time when they will hold the powers to set a course towards a prosperous future for the UK without instructions from the EU, and where they will legislate directly in support of their own objectives. They are clearly overwhelmed at the prospect, but instead of acknowledging it and seeking assistance so that they can make a useful contribution, they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep things as they are, because it’s all they understand. Just like the rest of us, however, they must learn to adapt to ever-changing circumstances or they will simply become irrelevant.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      I wouldn’t dispute what you say but I think the crucial factor in the evolution has been the pro-EU selection pressure exerted by those who have control of the main political parties. If anybody who is suspected of opposing the EU is excluded from becoming an official parliamentary candidate for a main political party then it is inevitable that we will end up with a House of Commons dominated by people who either actively support the EU or are prepared to go along with it. So then if you look for MPs who oppose EU membership you will only find some who were too well-established to be removed by the party leadership even though they held the wrong views, plus some who had concealed their true beliefs to slip through the process of national and local selection, or had later changed their minds. But I will repeat that what finally got me banned from the ConservativeHome website was persistent questioning of whether the various prospective Tory candidates being paraded saw their primary loyalty as being to the UK or to the EU.

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      I agree but add: the EU has become part of the promotion structure. Look at the Kinnocks. MPs move on to the EU parliament to massively paid jobs, massive pensions. Basically their ability to get their snouts in the EU trough are limitless, as long as they give their total support to the EU. Any former MP who moves in these circles must be viewed as a Quisling.

      • Fred H
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        I think a number of the Conservative ‘traitors’ will be applying for sinecure posts as MEPs or other highly paid officials.

  47. nhsgp
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    The Referendum was Parliament delegating back to the people.

    Time for you to follow orders.

    You have been ordered to leave.

    If you and fellow MPs don’t do as you are told, the consequences are we will not follow your orders.

    • James1
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      The consequences of not obeying the electorate is that we will vote you out (with relish).

  48. Edwardm
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Agree totally.
    Fundamentally Remainers are attempting ever harder to overturn the referendum result whereas Boris Johnson’s government is attempting to implement it.
    Leading Remainers, who are over-represented in parliament, are showing themselves to be disingenuous. And in the case of Corbyn and Momentum, they are becoming demagogic in their calls for civil disobedience and obstruction.

  49. Oggy
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    The problem with that argument is the judiciary are presumed to be impartial, well the same could be said about ‘bollocks to Brexit’ Bercow.

    • Oggy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      Oops supposed to be a Reply to narrow shoulders above.

  50. Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Sir John

    I may be an old fashioned dinosaur, but surely any GB court, whether, Scotland, NI, or England and Wales, acts ultra vires when it presumes to hear a case telling Parliament, when to meet, what to debate or how to vote. HMG should simply ignore the courts when they act beyond their powers.

  51. Annette
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    It is a most surprising position for MPs. As long as we get a clean exit, the LEAVE the EU that we voted for, Parliament will become more powerful & sovereign than it’s been for decades yet they fight it.

  52. Dominic
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Asylum for all Hong Kong protestors against Communist brutality and left wing fascism.

    What we are now seeing in HK we will see in the UK should Marxists ever gain a foothold

  53. Sea Warrior
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    The whole issue of where sovereignty lies is one that might make a good essay question for PPE students – but as I lack the inclination to write 2500 words I’ll just make an assertion that sovereignty should with the State. Not with the Queen, not with the PM, not with a jumped-up Parliament and not with the People. And a state has sovereignty only if it is able to act without the permission of other countries, wannabe super-states or supra-national bodies. Our state must get its sovereignty back.
    P.S. I like the idea that indulging Miller has cost us billions of pounds. Shout it from the rooftops! I would happily see her move to the EU.

    • Newmania
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

      So if I join a rugby club say do I cease to be an autonomous human being ? If I join a church say …have I become a sort of slave ?
      Of course not , I can leave if I want to but what I cannot do is enjoy the advantages of belonging and leave at the same time.

      Think.. please think its so important

      • Edward2
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

        Ah the golf club post.
        A sports club is not like the EU.

      • libertarian
        Posted September 1, 2019 at 9:56 am | Permalink

        Newmaniac

        Stupid analogy but then I guess thats all you’ve got .

        However if you want to use it. How many rugby clubs do you know that when a player leaves and joins another club threatens to not play the new team, to only play them using their own rules and to delay the kick off time in order to check the players new contract ?

        See stupid analogies are just well….. stupid …. See Forest Gump for full details

        ps the Church analogy really is not useful as I can think of a few that you cant actually leave and do treat you as a slave .

  54. Gareth Warren
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    When I sat in court as a juror, I was told the judge sat in place of her majesty the queen.

    That made sense, he derived his authority from that source. In theory the queen could displace any judge in any court, although I doubt she would be interested in doing so.

    Here I then see as utterly futile the idea of a judge overturning prorogation since the queen enforced it, or matters of parliament where the queen accepted its advice.

    Hopefully we will cleanly exit the EU in October offering the EU no more than a FTA, it is in Boris’s power to deliver this and as such I would not support him in an election if he refused to use those powers but then asked for my vote at a GE.

    If parliament somehow seized power from Boris I would hope for a agreement to cooperate with the brexit party, but if parliament does not seize control then he can finally take us out of the EU.

    • James1
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      It can’t be emphasised enough that the whole draft WA treaty needs to be binned, not just the removal of the backstop. Anything less and we will not be getting the Brexit that was voted for. Enough of the 17.4 million will not be fooled, and the errant MPs are living on borrowed time before their ejection at the next GE.

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      100% agree, and hope you are correct!

  55. BR
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I was surprised that the Miller woman’s case wasn’t thrown out by the courts. The judgement was odd, the case presented by the government seemed weak, in ignoring certain salient points.

    Not the least of these was to fail to challenge the assertion that “parliament is sovereign”. IN a democracy, the people are sovereign (demos = people; kratos = power). As JR says, this means that our sovereignty is lent to MPs, but the key point on Brexit is that any sovereignty they had was certainly returned when they held a referendum.

    Once that happened, any lingering sovereignty was certainly lost and the result should simply be enacted.

    All this ‘hard’ Brexit stuff emerged after the referendum. We can all dig up clips of Cameron saying that “you the people will decide, not the government, not parliament… ‘. We can also see that all parties were saying that we would leave all EU institutions.

    So how can the judiciary see this as anything but a delivery/implementation role? It does rather smack of bias, I have to say. This Supreme Court is not all it should be in my view.

    Let’s see if they do better next week.

    And as for the debate on MPs as ‘delegate’ vs ‘trustee’… don’t get me started. Burke, who the trustees like to quote, was voted out at the next opportunity and – he lived in a time when the electorate was around a dozen powerful, wealthy people with vested interests.

    On matters that have been decided by referendum and reinforced via manifesto, there is no room whatsoever for anyone claiming that they can reverse their previous commitments due to some nebulous concept of trusteeship.

  56. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    “The Gina Miller judgement created a costly delay in our departure from the EU”

    She would not have had much of a case if the Act ordering the referendum had said what should ensue from a vote to leave the EU; but the Act was silent on that and so it had to be stated in a new Act, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which only received Royal Assent on March 16 2017, nine months after the referendum.

    This defect in the referendum Act was repeatedly pointed out from more or less the day that the Tory party published a draft Bill, May 14 2013:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22518403

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_05_13_draft_referendum.pdf

    It was mentioned in comments on this blog, for example on July 6 2013 when the Tory MP James Wharton introduced it as a Private Member’s Bill:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/07/06/a-first-step-towards-a-referendum-on-the-eu/#comment-205921

    “I think what Cameron said in that interview may have got warped in translation from English to Spanish and back again.

    But people are entitled to be suspicious when the Bill he supports fails to say what must happen in the event of an “out” vote.

    It could lay down that the government must immediately notify the EU that the UK intends to withdraw under Article 50 TEU, but it doesn’t.”

    Moreover when Gina Miller had started her case the government actually told the court that there was no great urgency about deciding it.

  57. Newmania
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    The main planks of Leave were a £19 bonus, unimpeded access to Europe, Turkey`s entry, Syrian swarms, bankrolling failing States and the ‘EU military threat’. Emotional elements were resentment of knowledge the Metropolitan spirit and racially charged animosity towards immigrants. Sovereignty per se, was unimportant,
    The inability of a rotten borough Parliament onto which mass democracy was grafted in 1918 to cope is being solved by violating our constitution, bribing the DUP and using the EU’s open door. Economic suffering will be hidden by debt and propaganda as in most corrupt states.
    Everything evil and stupid built this structure,but the key-stone is the complicity of Labour`s hard left .When that is pulled out we will get revenge and while Gina Miller deserves all our gratitude, it is not over if she fails.
    Most of the country is excluded from this decision and those who glory in this act of subjugation should remember Blake’s Poison Tree

    I was angry with my friend;
    I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
    I was angry with my foe:
    I told it not, my wrath did grow

    • Newmania
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      (£19bn)

      • Edward2
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        You must have watched a different referendum campaign to me NM
        Taking back control was the big banner slogan of Leave.
        Remain had Project Fear 1.0

        • Newmania
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

          “Take back control” …to do what ?

          • Edward2
            Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

            Control over our money, our laws, our borders and our own trade deals.

    • Fred H
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      what do you mean IF she fails?

    • libertarian
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Newmaniac

      A quote from you

      ” Financial services will move to Frankfurt , Paris and Brussels. Thousands of jobs will be lost in the city ” Without passporting we will no longer be able to do business

      When does your job relocate?

  58. Ian!
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    As the day draws closer it is becoming increasingly obvious that those attempting to thwart the UK rightly becoming a independent democratic nation, are contriving with basically a foreign unelected power to achieve their goals.

    These remoaners do not have the will of the people behind them, they are breaking their election manifesto promises, they are breaking parliamentary law. They are seeking to subordinate Parliament to a foreign power.

    They are in reality acting as agents of an un-elected foreign power, not as servants of the people that elected them.

    Given that no one ever democratically selected and then elected by the people(words chosen carefully) has ever agreed or permitted the people of the UK to elect to be ruled by a foreign power, how is this permitted in a society that wants democracy?

    There is now a BIG list Major, Brown,Blair among others that are actively seeking the help of a undemocratic foreign power to stop the UK becoming a democracy. Then add in those still sitting in the HoC doing similar with this same foreign power. How can any one not see this is treachery of the highest order.

    Should the People ever trust a Politician again?

    One of the basic tenants of a Democracy is that Laws are passed by the peoples representatives, laws can be amended or changed by these same representatives. Take that away it becomes a Dictatorship, a Dictatorship these remainders are pushing for.

    Even in the EU’s own so-called pet parliament the MEP’s cannot scrutinize, amend or change the laws handed down to them by their un-democratic masters. The UK’s Parliament is just further down the chain and subordinate to it. The remainers want this to continue.

    The conclusion would be on staying in the EU there is absolutely no need for a UK Parliament

  59. BillM
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Indeed, these days, many of the judiciary think themselves above the sovereign State following that ominous trend in Parliament. Ms Miller’s approved action a case in point.
    Surely it is time the judiciary faced regular election to their high office in order to hold an accountability to the general public. With no accountability, judges can become a law unto themselves.
    Governments face the electorate every five years and if we are to be truly democratic, judiciary figures must be subjected to something similar. As it already is in some USA States.

  60. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    I read this headline:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/30/eu-wants-extend-article-50-avoid-no-deal-brexit-eurosceptics/

    “EU ‘wants to extend Article 50 to avoid no deal Brexit’ as Eurosceptics say Brussels cracking under pressure”

    and without reading any further that sets the alarm bells ringing very loudly.

    Guess what? The EU is prepared to consider allowing us to stay in something like the present limbo – we are still in the EU, with all the obligations but no longer any real say, and paying in – for as long as takes for us to either swallow Theresa May’s rubbish “deal” or decide that it would be better to ask for our Article 50 notice to be cancelled.

    And some “Eurosceptics” think the EU is cracking under pressure? Really?

    And will those same “Eurosceptics” continue to reassure us that the EU always takes negotiations to the wire and finalises its “deals” at the last minute, when under this cunning plan there may never be any last minute, we may stay in something like our current position in perpetuity?

    I repeat, under EU law as it stands the present Article 50 extension may not be used to renegotiate any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement or negotiate anything about the future relationship, it can only be used by the UK to find a way to approve and ratify what Theresa May negotiated:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/08/28/what-is-marxism/#comment-1049329

    Why is Boris Johnson pretending otherwise, and is he going to lead us into this trap?

    We need to leave ASAP, not unnecessarily wait until October 31st:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/254329

    “Leave the EU with No Deal in October 2019”

    60,472 signatures

    • BillM
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      If Brussels are to break the previously agreed End Date of October 31st, this should open the door for Boris and his Government to press forward in their arrangements and leave earlier than originally scheduled.
      Surely, everyone in Downing Street (Civil servants included) must be completely tired of and disgusted with the EU shenanigans over our decision to Leave their cosy club?
      Just get us out and win the grateful praises of the Nation and let the EU fend for itself for once.

  61. Andy
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    What a miserable mess the Brexiteers have made of our country.

    Lie piled upon lie piled upon lie. They do not even know they are doing it anymore.

    This crisis is entirely of the making of the Tory Brexit liars, Farage and UKIP.

    These are the people who will ultimately get the blame – even if many voters do not yet realise they’ve been had. But they will and the wrath that the Brexiteers will face will be joyous to watch. They have still not realised that it’s coming.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      Yet polls show an increased lead for the Conservatives and a majority who back the PM’s recent actions.

      • Newmania
        Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        The latest U Gov Poll is 28.8 and it shows the period of the Toffee nosed Trump bounce has been laughably short. Those who feel leaving the EU is the wrong thing to do are 10% ahead the widest lead ever. Survation backs this up and in the poll conducted on the 28th has “wrong to stop Parliament from sitting ..” at 46% to 30% for right . ..then you talk about democracy?
        Leave would lose any referendum and the consequences of their stupid lies are yet to be felt. An election in which the choice is between two Leave Parties one of which is also and IRA supporting quasi Communist hardly resolves the issue.
        Someone is going to pay for this, quite when I don`t know but there is no fence left to sit on and the dam will burst with all the more force by being denied any say.
        No line will be drawn no reconciliation, not now not ever.

        • Oggy
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

          Go and put the kettle on.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

          I realise it is hard for you to admit anything that challenges your political mind set Martin but since Boris became PM the Conservative lead in the polls has gone up.
          And a majority back him not Corbyn to sort out the current mess in Parliament.
          They support his actions since becoming PM.
          A few hundred lefty protesters out of 70 million people and you think you have a majority.
          Watch and wait.

    • Fred H
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      arise Sir Nigel.

    • Oggy
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      Delusional and still suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

    • BillM
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

      It is quite clear that you either wear ear defenders or blindfolds, or both when the news becomes readily available.
      To acquaint you with the facts, ‘Brexiteers’ have only been in Government since July 24th just 6 weeks ago. Prior to that date, this country was run by a Remainer PM and he Cabinet of fellow remainers who served themselves rather than the citizens who elected them.
      The ‘mess’ we are in is all down to the previous incumbent of Number 10 and our new one is trying to correct her dreadful mistakes and capitulations and proceed, as all parties promised, with the majority decision of the British people, to Leave the EU with no conditions. .
      So, sit back, take a deep breath and think of your Country (If you are British) and its new independence rather than kow-tow to the unelected Cabal of Foreigners, the EU Oligarchs who are ruining Europe as it deprives its citizens of jobs as well constantly dismantling their freedom and democracy.

    • graham1946
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

      It’s the Remainers who will get the boot. The referendum was national, but the GE is by constituency and 63 percent of constituencies voted leave against 37 percent voting remain. The Remainers in Parliament are mostly not long for the political world which is why they are trying to cause as much mayhem as possible. They will not succeed.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      Brexiteers have not been running the country for the past six decades, that has been people like you whose primary loyalty is to the EEC/EC/EU/USE.

      I look forward to some really scathing media commentary on John Major’s own “suspension” of Parliament for the ignoble purpose of preventing scrutiny of the Tory MPs who took payments for asking questions in the House … are you really sure that you want that character on your side, and do you think that Gina Miller will be pleased to have him as a co-litigant?

      Incidentally you may not know that it was William Rees-Mogg, the father of Jacob, who went to court to try to stop ratification of the Maastricht Treaty:

      https://www.ft.com/content/2ab6e278-8c39-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340

      “How Jacob Rees-Mogg’s anti-EU father defied former PM John Major”

      “Declassified documents have revealed the delight of Sir John when Lord Rees-Mogg’s judicial review failed.

      “A full gloat is meritted [sic],” the then-prime minister wrote on hearing the news.”

    • tim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      it is called Democracy, FOOL! go and live in Brussels!

    • libertarian
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      Andy

      What exactly is actually in a mess ( apart from our political parties) in the UK?

    • Jiminyjim
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

      Be very afraid of those who state that when they prevail they will wreak vengeance on the defeated. You are no democrat, Andy

  62. The Prangwizard
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    The concept of national sovereignty is of course completely lost on Remainers. They are fully bought to the EU project where national identity is slowly to be removed and replaced by loyalty to the EU with EU identity. So they see no problem for example with the ECJ having authority over people and laws in the UK. They cannot see a conflict as the EU is not ‘foreign’ to them and any discussion on the issue is thus irrelevant.

    I don’t know how to change their minds on this as they have completely abandoned belief in nationhood.

  63. Keith
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Let’ see how sovereign we are on 4th November- we should have had a good look at things by then- I’d say more like ‘sorry’ than ‘sovereign’

  64. Tabulazero
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Let’s inoculate his highness with a little bit of Edmund Burke:

    « [I]t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.[69]«

    You should start to feel better any time soon, sir John.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2019 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      What say you about my MP who sent an election address to my home stating I support the manifesto of the Conservative party and will work to get the UK to leave the EU and then has been at the forefront of those actively plotting to stop us leaving.
      Quote Burke all you like but these people will be voted out at the next election, if not deselected before that time.

  65. Posted August 31, 2019 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to know….

    WHERE HAVE ALL OF THESE DEMOCRACY LOVING PEOPLE COME FROM, ALL OF A SUDDEN, AND WHERE THE HELL HAVE THEY BEEN FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS

  66. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 9:12 pm | Permalink
  67. Lear's Fool
    Posted August 31, 2019 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Sirrah, would Oliver Cromwell be issuing the below speech to this remainer assembly:

    ” It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

    In the name of God, go!”

  68. margaret howard
    Posted September 1, 2019 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Lear’s Fool

    It’s a pity you don’t follow this story to its bitter end.

    They quickly brought their king back when it all went pear shaped – as this will.

    If these Brexiteers succeed then these modern day Roundheads will be replaced again by us Cavaliers a few years down the line.

    We begged 50 years ago to be allowed to join the EU and can only hope that they will have us back a second time despite our despicable ingratitude.

    • Edward2
      Posted September 1, 2019 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

      But in the end a good democracy powered by the people was the real beneficial end result.
      The powers of the unelected elite (ie the Royalty) were reduced.
      Which is the real metaphor for today.

      • margaret howard
        Posted September 1, 2019 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

        No Edward, the powers of the unelected elite are still with us. They have just foisted their patsy Boris on us as prime minister and have made us the laughing stock of the world.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 2, 2019 at 7:25 am | Permalink

          The unelected elite are in charge of the EU
          Not one citizen of Europe voted for their EU President or any Commissioners or Council heads.
          Only MEPs are voted by us and they have little real powers all they do is just rubber stamp laws rules regulations and directives made by the unelected elite

          Boris in contrast was elected as an MP by voters in his constituency.
          Then his party were elected in 2017 and became the government.
          Then all the members and MPs of that party voted to chose a new leader.
          And unlike the unelected elite in the EU at the next general elections in the UK you can vote him out.

        • Fred H
          Posted September 2, 2019 at 7:54 am | Permalink

          If we had been able to Leave at the first available date, we would have the respect of the entire world, including the fawns in the EU. But, due to the devious duplicity of so many members the UK Parliament now looks like a fighting rabble in a low league football derby.
          Boris should eject the ringleaders and bring democracy home!

One Trackback

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page