Parliament, government and the courts

We live in a relatively free society with some separation of powers. The common law evolves through court decisions by Judges. Parliament can at any stage seek to change the law by an Act of Parliament. Statute law commands respect from the courts and can override common law but the courts do not always “obey” it. They interpret it. Sometimes they interpret it in ways that Parliament dislikes and regards as a distortion. In such cases Parliament can legislate again to give a clearer instruction to the courts.

All our current domestic law and all the powers of government, Parliament and courts are subordinate to the EU Treaties, EU regulations and directives and to judgements of the European Court of Justice. An EU law can override or strike down an Act of Parliament or a judgement of our Supreme Court if appealed to the ECJ. That was the kernel of the referendum debate for many people, with many Leave voters wishing to restore our domestic rule of law without EU supremacy.

The courts reserve the right to query or even ignore Statute law if they think an Act of Parliament is unclear, or violates human rights or some other superior law or legal principle. A law has to be clear, fair to all and enforceable. An Act of Parliament saying the sun must shine tomorrow, or saying 20 year olds must get up at 6 am or saying people whose surnames begin with an A cannot be allowed a driving licence would all likely to be void for good reasons.

The courts traditionally have not interfered in matters of Crown or government prerogative or high politics. They have tended to take the view if asked that Parliament has the necessary power to curb or remove a Prime Minister who uses Crown prerogative in ways that annoy MPs, who in turn will be influenced by public opinion on these issues. If a PM ceases to please Parliament can remove him or her by a No Confidence vote.

The courts have also taken the view that where an issue is hotly contested between parties and factions within the public, it is best to let politics and Parliament sort out the disagreement. It would be unacceptable if the UK’s departure or staying in the EU fell in the end to be decided by a judgement in the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court needs from time to time to find against the government in judicial review cases where litigants are challenging the way government has made a decision or enforced a policy. That is not the same as the Supreme Court presuming to itself the unique power to settle the biggest political question of the decade. However big a mess Parliament has made of it, this needs to resolved by Parliament. If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.

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


  1. Lifelogic
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    Exactly right. Our domestic rule of law must be restored without EU court supremacy. Anything else is not Brexit.

    As you say:- “If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.” and they will do. Some Brexit Party accommodation will however be needed.

    So Rudd says she will comeback into the Conservative Party if the other 21 traitors are allowed back in. What on earth makes her think we want her (or any of these other traitors) back to undermine the party and kick the voters in the teeth yet again?

    • Nig l
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:56 am | Permalink

      Agree totally. The arrogant hubris of Rudd defies belief. I say good riddance. As for the court the ECJ is political and we will continue to be tied to it under Boris’ May 2 deal and I fear our Supreme Court will follow suit. I would like it’s judgement to clarify once and for all its powers in relation to Parliament so that the egotistical Gina Millers of this world can’t use their money to enforce their view over the rest of us.

      Why can’t we impeach/take Bercow to court for gross abuse of power. I would contribute to crowd funding for that. For the future Erskine May needs updating. Currently it seems to allow anyone with ‘(autocratic Ed)’ tendencies to ride roughshod over the Executive to further their own views when I thought they were there only as an umpire!

      • Hope
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        I think it time Farage and prominent leave politicos led a protest at parliament to oust parliament. Traitor Letwin and co should not be allowed any further to defy the will of the people. Time for them to go. This banana republic parliament cannot be allowed to continue. This is no longer about leave ormremain, we won that swag to and vote. This is now about democracy and anti democracy MPs.

        • Fedupsoutherner
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

          Hope, never a truer word spoken

        • Hope
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

          I think it ought to be clear by now the Tory party is done. We will not forget what Mayhab has done in three years to reach this situation.

          Her treachery to Dexu by Chequers plan and threats for ministers to walk away on foot with her alternative servitude plan should have seen her ousted. This must have been agreed with EU in advance and EU going along with the treachery deceive to Davis and his team. They must have known and been part of the double dealing! Mayhab and her Kitkat team need investigating.

          Everyone is now clear what her aim was: to keep the UK in the EU by another treaty on worse terms while giving away our military. On a minor note no military to stop or even defend territorial waters from foreign fishing vessels she gave control to the EU. Another article in con woman highlighting this!

          All leave preparations for no deal should have been complete by Chequers/Summer 2018 at the latest with a view to leave in March 2019, knowing if parliament rejected her servitude plan no deal it would be! Like Cameron she made sure, through Hammond, the country was not prepared! Traitor does not begin to describe her awful behaviour. No wonder Dee she prevented Merkel answering questions about her/their servitude plan.

          Parliament should have been prorogued preventing it from returning from summer break.

          JR, the question is: what are you leavers, govt and party going to do to defeat parliament’s anti democracy control of govt and with the 21 traitors who lost the whip and the others defecting without by election?

        • Hope
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          JR, like the rest of us you must now think what a liar and shyster Cameron was when telling us one thing before the referendum and now saying the exact opposite? How do think this reflects on your party? Bearing in mind a large number of the current traitors were in his cabinet? Alternatively, do you think his book is just to be controversial to make more from the taxpayers?

    • James Bertram
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:17 am | Permalink

      Agreed, Lifelogic.
      As said the other day, why is May (and those 200 MPs who voted ‘Confidence’ in her treachery) still allowed to be in the Tory Party?
      They still wish to impose on us May’s appalling Brino just so as to keep this shambles of a Tory Party on the road – meanwhile the country suffers.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:43 am | Permalink

        Nicky Morgan in Stoke just now. Asked how would she would vote in any second referendum? “Remain” she said (totally regardless of the question one assumes)! Yet she remains a minister in a government pledged to deliver Brexit on 31st do or die?

        She is yet another Lawyer. Nearly all lawyers do seem to be pro-remain – the more court levels, legal complexity & confusion the better as they see it. It is very worrying that Judges are a subset of lawyers (however impartial some of them are trying to be). They are almost as one sided, group think as the BBC are on Brexit.

        • Bob
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:41 am | Permalink

          The FPTP electoral system and the constant psycho pressure to “keep the other side out” has led us to where we are.

          A ukip govt would have repealed the ECA 1972 and abolished the BBC Licence by now.

          If people would only realise the power they have and stopped this “tactical voting” business we may have made some progress by now.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

            Given the FPTP system that pertains a Brexit party/Conservative accommodation is essential. It will bring them a large majority.
            The Brexit Party standing in seats where the Conservatives have little chance and visa versa. A win, win for both parties with nothing of any significance lost and hopefully a few more people (with similar views to the 22 traitors) will go too and stand as the Libdems that they are).

            On the Week in Westminster just now someone said we have not seen people of the stature of Philip Hammond standing as Independents. They wondered how he might get on.

            I can tell them he would lose massively as he is a massive electoral liability with the personality of the grim reaper.

            He was a dire, tax to death chancellor, an IHT ratter, a fan of HS2, a pension pot snatcher, an enemy of landlords, tenants business, the economy (and people who move home), he undermined the EU negotiations from the start. Then he appallingly assisted in trying to undermine the Boris government (to try defeat the clear will of the people).

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

            A pusher of absurd renewable subsidies and over expensive energy too.

        • rose
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          She did say she was dead against a second referendum.

          Michael Howard is a lawyer, so is Dominic Raab, and so is Martin Howe. I think there are a few others, but on the whole Brexiteers seem to be classicists and historians. Isn’t the AG supposed to be a Brexiteer?

    • Peter
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      Meanwhile it seems as if Team Boris are doing all they can to lose Brexit.

      First he fails to initiate filibuster tactics to talk out the anti No Deal legislation.

      Then he tries to scupper any chance of a successful pact with the Brexit Party.

      Perhaps he thinks a sympathy vote based on Boris v Parliament will carry him through in an election? If so he could not be more mistaken.

      So a reheated Withdrawal/Surrender Agreement seems to be his current plan. Unless he thinks that the EU will come to his rescue by denying an extension so we leave on WTO terms by default.

      Whatever his thoughts the Boris bounce did not last long and the suspicion is that he deliberately threw away his trump cards.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        Yes, just why was the filibuster abandoned? Some Brexit Party accommodation is clearly essential to ensure Corbyn is dispatched. Perhaps too early to do this though.

      • David J
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        You sum up my concerns very well. The latest version of the WA is on it’s way. Sliding this in before an election will scupper the Brexit Party too.

        • L Jones
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

          David J.
          If it’s ”slid in”, with only the red herring backstop removed, what sort of GE can we expect? Free and fair?

          You’re right – it would ”scupper the Brexit Party” because our newly confirmed EU masters wouldn’t allow it to win.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

          Doing this would give us no real brexit & Corbyn which would be total disaster.

        • Fred H
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

          I doubt it – I imagine many many Brexit Party candidates will win even though too late! How else to make their point?

    • Christine
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      I think that Labour and the Conservatives consider that if they deliver BRINO before the next election it will put the Lib Dems and The Brexit Party back in their box and keep their two party system in place. This might work for the Lib Dems but it certainly won’t work for The Brexit Party. If Boris Johnson thinks he can con the British people with a rehashed Theresa May Withdrawal agreement then he is sadly mistaken. He will never ever be forgiven.

      To me the unopposed Kinnock amendment shows Boris’s true intention, this is to bring back the WA for another vote. I smell a stitch up.

      • Chris
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        I think you are absolutely right, Christine.

        • Fedupsoutherner
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

          I think so too. This is what I posted yesterday. I don’t trust Boris. I think a watered down version of the WA will get through and we won’t have left but will find ourselves in a worse position than before. They truly are traitors.

        • L Jones
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

          Everyone seems very optimistic about ”the next General Election”. When will it take place? And how fair will it be?
          If power is handed via BRINO to the EU, how much influence will that have on the results of an eventual GE?

          • L Jones
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

            The ”influence” being that of the EU.

    • jane4brexit
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      If Boris and the Conservative party were serious about a full clean preferably WTO Brexit, then why not take advantage of this time Parliament is prorogued by asking and encouraging members in Leave constituencies to expel even more MPs and candidates who support Remain replacing them with Brexiteers. In fact all constituencies should be asked, as even those with a former Remain majority hopefully believe in democracy and the implementation of the referendum result.

      Then when an election is called there would be a greater choice of Leave supporting candidates to vote in, otherwise who else is there for Brexiteers to vote for than TBP.

      • Christine
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

        The problem you have is that you may oust one remainer MP but how do you know the true intentions of their replacement. Only The Brexit Party can be relied upon to deliver a clean break Brexit.

    • Jack Leaver
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      It will be of no comfort to leave voters to remove MPs in a GE if they decide beforehand to force through a fourth vote on the WA/PD as I fear they will unless Boris Johnson pulls a rabbit out of a hat or we leave without a deal on the 31st October. If this Parliament were to pass the WA/PD, the UK electorate would be powerless as I understand the treaty, which would lock the UK in perpetual servitude to the EU, could not be reversed or amended. I hope my fear is unwarranted.

      • Shirley
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        No treaty is inviolable, especially one that was deliberately imposed against the will of the people.

        • Hope
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

          Lots of treaties are changed and withdrawn we had this debate on this site before. Guido also ran a similar blog despite fear mongering to the contrary.

  2. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Basically, we are mere minions. Even when the current PM gives the people a vote to decide what they want it gets overturned and then we are told we can’t have another election and so are helpless. When parliament doesn’t like the way things are going they all get together and go to court. Their cases are heard in double quick time. I feel your post today John is preparing us for the courts verdict to go against us. It really is unacceptable. There will be a GE soon and I hope the public are ruthless. We may as well be living in a dictatorship.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:06 am | Permalink

      John’s post is as disingenuous as ever.

      Again he confuses absolutes and relatives. You either have Separation Of Powers or you don’t. Johnson’s prorogation stunt makes clear that it is not properly protected here.

      Yes, European Union law has to enjoy primacy among the twenty-eight member states, it would be nonsensical otherwise. The great “but” is that it only has a clear, narrow remit, as defined in the Treaty, and generally in uncontroversial areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, food and product standards and so on. It has absolutely no wide-ranging arbitrary powers.

      All our statute laws are intended, by both Parliaments, not to clash either with each other or with our international obligations. However, oversights happen, and when the Court discovers this it rules accordingly. Generally the matter is corrected by Parliament at the first opportunity too.

      The only occasion where a Court is likely to decide that a matter is for Parliament is where the law or Constitution is silent, and that has happened.

      However, if a person has not acted in good faith in informing Her Majesty on a constitutional matter, then the Court may decide that the process has been invalidated.

      I think that it is telling, that Johnson has refused to make a sworn statement for the Court as to his reasons for the prorogation.

      The applicants seen confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the Scottish ruling.

      Reply EU law encompasses benefits, taxation, defence procurement and any other important matters.

      • David Taylor
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        I am confident that Her Majesty is well advised by persons other than the Prime Minister , I think it is unlikely that She would be misled about prorogation , prorogation has precedent .
        There does not need to be new laws in regard to how a Government decides its Brexit Strategy or indeed any strategy , so long as existing laws , procedures and precedents are followed , which they appear to this layman to be , in this matter , it is a Political move , Lord Sumption spoke a good deal of sense about it the other day .
        The constant misleading opinion put forward that Boris Johnson has no mandate , yes He does , He is the elected leader of the Conservative Party which won a majority albeit slight in the last election .
        Gordon brown was chosen as leader of the Labour Party , He also had a mandate to be Prime Minister , this method is legal & acceptable .
        The European Court is the final arbiter of much more than Martin of Cardiff suggests .

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        Thank you John.

        Yes, the European Union’s law can sometimes impinge on many areas, even though it may not draft laws directly in those, as indeed can other UK law.

        However – and you ignore my main point – by far and away the majority of its laws are concerned with completely uncontroversial matters, and with ensuring a level playing field for the Single Market.

        It would be a very strange Union, if its laws were only able to be utterly trivial, however.

        What matters is whether our laws are good or bad, not who had a hand in their conception. We still obey quite a few Roman and Norman ones, because they serve a good purpose, for instance.

        • Fred H
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

          Welsh Martin…..Laws tend to be good if they stand the test of time. A reasonable way for society to behave, irrespective of religious beliefs. In the last few weeks and months law seems to have been dug up, dusted off or virtually invented overnight to serve a very very short term situation. That in itself indicates it is not good. What use will they be in the years to come, compared to most of our laws, indeed perhaps repeal them?

      • David Maples
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

        If the Supreme Court of Judicature does uphold the Scottish court, they will be contradicting the ratio decidendi of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, in the Divisional Court, who were presiding!

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          No, because the Scottish hearing was dealing with an application based on a different CASE.

          It will be that which is heard again in the Supreme Court.

      • L Jones
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

        And MinC’s posts are as patronisingly insulting, as ever.

        Generally speaking, it’s good to hear people’s differing opinions but when they can’t be given without deliberate offence, then they’re really not worth reading.

        When I see this person’s name, and read (usually) his first sentence, I don’t bother. I wonder how many others feel the same way.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

        How typical of a Remain/Labour voter to attribute saving-the-world-from-European-military-conflict to the EU without mention of Reagan or Thatcher.

        (Re a previous comment MiC made. )

        • Anonymous
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

          Or mention of NATO.

          The EU saved the world from WW3 according to MiC.

    • Turboterrier
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:43 am | Permalink


      Correct 100%

    • Chris
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      Very unfortunately they are not required under the FTPA to have a GE for a few years.

    • Christine
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      Maybe it’s a good thing if the parliamentary session doesn’t end as the Withdrawal Agreement then can’t be brought back for a fourth vote unless it has been significantly amended.

      My biggest fear is Boris in league with the anti-Corbyn labour MPs forming a pact to pass BRINO with a confirmatory referendum with the WA versus Remain.

  3. Stephen Priest
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Jeremy Corbyn is the most extreme politician in Europe. And yet Hammond and co are more than happy to collude with him.

    John Pienaar say there has never been a more divisive Prime Minister than Boris.

    The appalling bias of the BBC never ends. The next manifesto should scrap the Licence Fee and let the BBC fund themselves however the choose, as long as it’s not compulsory.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:49 am | Permalink

      Yep – it’s about time that the Conservatives grasped the nettle. Why are they so timid? Also, Channel 4, churning out its non-stop filth, should be sold off too. Adam Smith wouldn’t have thought that the government should be in the business of ‘entertaining’ the nation.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:14 am | Permalink

      There are plenty of politicians in Europe urging mass deportations, summary detention, the destruction of religious buildings, the end of a free press, and so on.

      Do you seriously think that Jeremy Corbyn is more extreme that them?

      Apparently you do.

      • Original Richard
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        MiC : “There are plenty of politicians in Europe urging mass deportations, summary detention, the destruction of religious buildings, the end of a free press, and so on.”

        And you want to be part of this “Europe” so we are ruled by European politicians who we do not know, who have no empathy for the UK, and who we did not elect and cannot remove ?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:04 pm | Permalink


      • libertarian
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        Martin in Cardiff

        “There are plenty of politicians in Europe urging mass deportations, summary detention, the destruction of religious buildings, the end of a free press, and so on.”

        Whoa , hold on yesterday you told us that Europe was the bastion of civilisation, freedom and peace…. That went down hill quickly

        Yes Corbyn and his puppet masters are the MOST extreme politicians in Europe right now, he’s just not in power ( and never will be) in order to demonstrate it fully

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:42 am | Permalink

          Fortunately those types do not hold power, and their influence is declining..

          And the UK produced Thomas Mair.

          Your point is?

          • Edward2
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

            So first you say “there are plenty of….”
            Then when challenged you say, yeah but, those types don’t hold power”
            Which means you have just ruined your own ridiculous original claim.
            Don’t go entering any debating competitions Martin.

          • L Jones
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

            I think the point that should be made, MinC, that you see yourself as an agent provocateur. But you’re not a particularly good one.

          • rose
            Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

            Thomas Mair was ill.

      • Fred H
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

        Martin….you just demonstrated one of the many issues we LEAVERS have with the EU.
        “There are plenty of politicians in Europe urging mass deportations, summary detention, the destruction of religious buildings, the end of a free press, and so on.”
        My case rests M’Lud.

    • Turboterrier
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:44 am | Permalink


      Absolutely bring it on.

    • jane4brexit
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      The BBC moving away to the EU would be good…after all they said all companies would do that after Brexit!

    • Mark
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      As a very infrequent reader of BBC news online, I have been alarmed to discover that neither the BBC nor OFCOM will address factual inaccuracies if the article was published more than 30 days previously. Fake news then persists on the internet and gets quoted as “you can trust the BBC” gospel.

      This is plainly wrong. (My complaint was about a claim that offshore wind generation would cost £57.50/MWh in 2022, which is completely false. At best there are a couple of CFDs giving companies the option to extend existing wind farms at £57.50/MWh in 2012 money with a current indexed value of £65.09/MWh that will doubtless rise still further, but no guarantee these will be built. You might as well claim you can post a letter for 1d as in the time of Queen Victoria. That is before you look at the prices obtained for all the existing and in construction projects, which averages of the order of £150/MWh)

  4. Richard1
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    If, as has happened now several times since the referendum, the courts are to make political determinations, then we need judges to be either elected or clearly appointed by elected politicians, as in the US. If we want to continue with a politically neutral and impartial judiciary, then judges need to decline to insert themselves into the political process.

    • James1
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

      If Boris tries to foist upon us May’s WA minus the backstop it will be an act of great betrayal. It will also be a desperately foolish thing to do. Not only will it not be Brexit, it will ensure that the turmoil continues, and indeed increases, because we will be unable to immediately move to gain the advantages of Brexit. The Remainers will be encouraged to simply switch to arguing that we will be better off rejoining the EU.

      • Chris
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        ..also any future referendum would be between BRINO and Remain as they will argue that we have already Left (via BRINO) so Leave should not be on the paper.

    • matthu
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      Do you mean in a manner similar to how most of the members in the House of Lords are clearly appointed by elected politicians?

  5. Mark B
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    There are clear divisions between the various institutions and for good reason. This is because power can corrupt. We have, in our history, removed Monach’s, PM’s & Parliaments. Mostly without the spilling of blood. Our systems do work, but they need to be made to work and everyone must recognise the relative boundaries, powers and responsibilities of each.

    What has so troubled me recently is the fact that parliament has taken upon itself the role of the Executive. I have argued here that we need to look at that and, perhaps consider separating the two. Parliament has trespassed on dangerous ground. It has taken upon itself the duties of the Executive but not the responsibilities of it. This is wrong ! One cannot ask or command someone to do something that is not in their gift to do, and then expect said person to carry it out ant to take the fallout from it.

    Many now see this parliament as a bad parliament. It is full of individuals who, are clearly not only acting against the national interest, but are determined to destroy us as a nation ( vis-a-vis the Withdrawal Agreement).

    We also witnessed the shameful behaviour of not only MP’s from all sides but, the Speaker himself. We are watching, Sir John and it does not make good viewing.

    Not happy. Not happy at all.

    I noticed that there were fewer posts yesterday compared to previous. Perhaps there is something I suggested 😉

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      Excellent comment.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        Thank you.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      My comments are generally published by our host. But some people are clearly capable of understanding a reasonable request.

      It is telling that you would apparently welcome as wide a suppression of opposing viewpoints as possible.

    • Turboterrier
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      Very good observations, like you and thousands if not millions of others in the country not happy at all.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

        Where ever you go, when the subject of BREXIT is raised the same comments and feelings are repeated over and over. This is wound on our society will take decades to heal, if ever.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      It would be unfortunate if this became an echo chamber.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        It is up to our host on what he posts. Unlike some I keep to the topic. And neither am I a Troll 😉

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    Any Questions and Question Time hugely pro EU/Project fear biased yet again. Q/T last week was for once only 4 remainers (including the chairman) to three leavers. What complete and utter disingenuous anti-democratic plonkers Emily Thornberry MP, Layla Moran MP, Ian Blackford MP sounded too. Why are the BBC allowed to get away with this endless propaganda?

    It will be nice, post Brexit, if I do not to have to listen to Thornberry. Blackford, Hillary Benn, Gauke, Hammond, Rudd, Starmer, Chakerabati, Barry Gardener, all those EU bureaucrats and the Libdim/SNP types ever again. Nor in indeed all those very many “Conservative” or ex-Conservative traitors.

    David Cameron book: ‘I’m sorry. I failed – indeed you did. You had a golden opportunity too with two sitting duck elections (against Brown and Ed Milliband) and a country crying out of a proper Conservative government. All you had to do was to be the “low tax at heart”, cast iron/EU skeptic Conservative that you lied that you were to gain the leadership.

    Alas you were just another tax to death, no nation, anti-democratic, project fear pushing Libdim.

    Let us hope we can still leave cleanly on 31st October despite the anti-democratic efforts of the dire Bercow, the dreadful makeup of Parliament and the rest.

    • Julian Flood
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

      “No Nation Conservative” would have made a good alternative title for Mr Cameron’s book.


      • rose
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

        He has plummeted in my estimation, just since reading the remainiac Times interview. Like so many politicians and journalists, he seems to have thought the referendum was all about loyalty to him. Topic after topic is misrepresented by the Times man and by him. He also says or implies nasty things about fellow Conservatives to back all this up. And yet there are rare flashes of understanding.

        One thing needs correcting more than the rest: only he lied about Turkey. I was shocked at the time, and at how he bullied and browbeat Penny Mordaunt on the subject. We were sponsoring Turkey’s accession so he couldn’t have vetoed it. This was part of a continuous British policy to counter the growing power at the centre of the EU, by going for widening and enlargement, as with Eastern Europe. Turkey was already in a customs union with the EU and in receipt of relocations of manufacturing etc. She was also a very important NATO ally, with a proper army.

        When Cameron disowned the Turks, they were deeply offended and their PM said “Why did you lead us on if you didn’t mean it?” A proud nation, they felt humiliated, and this important alliance was damaged. Now they don’t want to be in the EU any more and they seem to be moving towards Russia. Was that panicky lie worth it?

        • rose
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

          He is crazy to be slandering Brexiteers, and disparaging the winning voters, trying to blame them for his discomfiture. It isn’t Brexiteers accosting him with ruderies in the street. Most of us are grateful for having the referendum, and he should be supporting us and our PM now, not trying to align with the remainiacs..

  7. agricola
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    Let us hope that the Supreme Court realises the subtle balance between the law and political judgement. The sooner the EU element is removed the better, we cannot sustain the UK being pulled in three different legal directions, not to mention a Parliament that has no discernable direction.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:47 am | Permalink


  8. Oggy
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    ‘then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.‘

    – how can we remove those democracy deniers in Parliament when Parliament refuses to have an election ?

    Are we now living in a Banana republic ?, more akin to the politics of Zimbabwe (or the EU) than the UK.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:55 am | Permalink

      Well in taxation the General Anti-avoidance rule is certainly a Zimbabwe type of tax. You owe what HMRC ‘invents that you owe’, (thus deterring much sensible investment). If the ‘would be asset and property thieves’ Corbyn and Mc Donnall get in it will get far, far worse.

  9. eeyore
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Now that Parliament is in sole charge of its own departure date, there is nothing to stop it repealing the 1911 Parliament Act which provides for five-yearly elections. Indeed it may, if it wished, abolish elections altogether and sit in perpetuity.

    It might further legislate to remove the need for the Royal Assent. In that case we shall have a pure elective dictatorship.

    This would be in the interest of MPs who wished to retain their seats, power and privileges yet feared facing the electorate. Not only might this theoretically happen, I predict it will certainly happen.

    • Yellow Fist
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      They have reached the step of stating HM The Queen is misinformed, in this case via the PM. They are but one step away.

  10. gregory martin
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    “If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.”

    But once the people realise that the ‘third Box of freedom’ is exhausted, or ineffective ,then they may open the fourth Box

  11. Rocky
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    What is now becoming very obvious is the delicacy of the British Constitution.

    Tony Blair it was who moved the supreme court out of the House of Lords (aka Parliament) and into a place which will soon be full of political appointments (like the American one, no doubt).
    By altering the fixed term parliament arrangement, the Coalition have stymied Brexit.
    By appointing a bright young Conservative as the Speaker, the whole process of the House of Commons has been bent into EU shape.
    Both the secrecy of the enormous and clumsy Cabinet and the discussions between the Prime Minister and his Sovereign are now being discussed as if we had a right to listen.

    It is like savages with a watch.

    • eeyore
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

      Well said. We have what the theorists call a “Good Chap” constitution. It assumes the chaps in charge are good chaps who can safely be trusted. America has a “Bad Chap” constitution which assumes they are all rotters who will nick the spoons.

      What happens in a Good Chap system when good chaps are not in charge, we are now finding out.

      • Sharon Jagger
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:22 am | Permalink


        Along with you and other posters, I agree. And particularly your idea of good chaps being in charge….and Parliament is certainly now looking to be in the shape of the EU.

        Sadly, there are parallels to 1930’s Germany, where the the law was used to break the law – and now, is happening here.

        What can we, the electorate, DO?

        Currently we have our hands tied with regards to a general election. And I believe the endgame is to wear us down emotionally, whereby a referendum will be introduced. And of course this time we must vote the ‘right way’.

        • rose
          Posted September 15, 2019 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

          The irritating thing about this phrase, coined by Peter Hennessy, is that it isn’t applied to Bercow. Oh no!

          If ever there were a post requiring a good chap in it, it is the Speakership.

  12. Leaver
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    The supreme court isn’t going to allow parliament to be prorogued – that’s for sure. Otherwise it would be saying the British Constitution allows any government to suspend parliament for whatever reason and for however long it likes. Not going to happen. Which is unfortunate, as parliament haven’t done themselves any credit in this business. But rules are rules.

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

      I’m a Leaver too – but I think that The Supremes will not act against the government. Only four sitting days have been lost.

      • Bernard from Bucks.
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:30 am | Permalink

        Legal commentators, including the retired Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, expect the UK Supreme Court to side with the English ruling rather than the Scottish one.

    • Christine
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      The damage has already been done, so what will four days extra arguing deliver? It would serve these parties right if their conferences were cancelled, so they could sit for more days and continue arguing amongst themselves, whilst the public look on with disgust. Events have overtaken the prorogation. This is why the ‘stop the coup’ chants have ceased. The prorogation will stand as the opposition already have what they wanted.

    • anon
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      Maybe it will on the condition a vote of no confidence is held. Voting for the no confidence causing a GE. The court could enforce periodic votes of no confidence until an GE is held.

  13. BCL
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    This question only arises because the remainers wish to prevent the electorate from approving the PM’s decision to leave on the 31st October whether there is a deal or not. Attempting to tie the hands of the electorate to prevent an election to prevent us leaving is as undemocratic as it gets. The remedy for MP’s who dislike the PM’s proroguing of parliament is in their own hands. Have a vote of no confidence and remove him. They won’t do that because they fear the electorate will do as he suggests. The courts should say that.

  14. Derek Henry
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    Well street and City of London want us to stay at the heart of Europe after all they designed the EU structure and how it has evolved to protect US power against China and Russia.

    Trump fully understands the power of Wall street in the US. The city of London has infected every part of the UK. Both Hammond and Carney are their cheer leaders.

    Having said that I am still surprised that Trump has not put more pressure on his allies in Europe for just one of them to veto an extension. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if this time a veto happens. Which could be Boris only way out.

    • Mitchel
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      The empire appears to be crumbling in the east.Some interesting developments recently by Russian and Chinese proxies there:Serbia announced last week it was going to join Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union on October 25 whilst still continuing to seek entry to the EU(which the EU insists is not possible) .The Czech President has said he wants to withdraw recognition of Kosovo’s independence(and, whilst it’s not clear he alone has the power so to do,a visit by the Kosovar leader has been cancelled).Hungary has said it intends to upgrade relations with Syria and the HQ of the Russian-controlled International Investment Bank(the investment banking arm-equivalent-of the former Soviet COMECON,revitalised by Mr Putin a decade ago) has also been moved from Moscow to Budapest which will give it greater scope for operations within the EU.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      Derek Henry

      Yes WALL St and the City wanted to remain

      No, EU financial services of all 27 countries combined does NOT match the strength of the City of London.

      Citigroup European chief David Livingstone said they are fully ready for a hard Brexit and are keen to maintain London as their European HUB

      In July 2019 Goldman Sachs opened their new European HQ in the City of London at Plumtree Court With more than one million square feet of space, Plumtree Court houses the largest trading floor in London and includes eight floors for workplace

      JP Morgan Chase has 159 pages of job vacancies in their London office right now

      The city has “infected” every part of the UK, what does that mean even?

  15. GilesB
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    ‘No one is above the law’.

    This must include the Speaker. Why can’t his decision that EU Bill #6 didn’t need Queen’s consent eligible for judicial review?

    And as it involves spending an extra billion a month for three months need to be proposed by a Minister

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:13 am | Permalink

      Why indeed.

      • rose
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps that is what Boris means by obeying the law – the proper law.

  16. Graham Wood
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    Sir John. I agree. We are in the midst of a battle of usurped parliamentary power versus constitutional principle. As a result the rule of law, complete with our freedom of independence and liberty, in short, our whole birthright is at stake.
    Our politicians are not elected or empowered to disenfranchise us from our birth-right of self determination.
    They represent the will of the people in parliament for the purpose of governing only in accordance with our law and Constitution.
    Thus all the courts are subservient to that principle.
    In the final analysis it is our Bill of Rights and other constitutional Acts, such as the Coronation Oath Act which must determine what the “law” actually says and that is not unclear. These unequivocally declare that no foreign power can have jurisdiction in this realm

  17. George Brooks
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Your second paragraph Sir John says it all and it was that for which we voted to leave plus the opportunity to trade where we please.

    Remainers have never explained the benefit of our laws and courts being subordinate to the ECJ and EU treaties, because there are none.

    • Andy
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      Let’s help you out.

      Much, if not most, EU law is product rules and regulations. Boring stuff like saying your fridges can’t contain poisonous chemicals – or that lead can’t be put in paints used on children’s toys.

      These shared rules – few of which we object to – facilitate trade. It means products made in the U.K. are made following the same rules as products made in France, Germany or Spain. This allows not just free but frictionless trade and it is this which keeps the Irish border open.

      European law is not imposed on us. We agree with it. The ECJ gets involves only when EU law – which we’ve agreed to – conflicts with British law, which we’ve also agreed to. It is there to resolve conflicts in law.

      And interestingly I bet none of you can name off the top of you head a single ECJ ruling against the UK which you object to. This is not surprising as we very rarely get taken to the ECJ and it is even rarer for us to lose.

      The one area we have lost repeatedly? How the UK deals with its waste water. Yes, waste water. You literally voted to take back control of your own sewage.

      Reply The Uk has lost various important cases including for example Corporation tax cases costing us revenue.

      • Original Richard
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        A well known maxim for judging investment decisions is “Past performance is not indicative of future results”

        Apart from those remainers who are only interested in making their EU holidays easier, or those who simply dislike the UK and democracy and wish for our country to be dissolved and ruled by another power – just like the communists wished in the last century – there are many who cannot see any distance into the future and ignore all statements made by the EU into how it wishes to expand and rule us in the future.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        Thank you Andy.

        John is correct that the UK has lost a few cases, as have all European Union member states.

        However, here we go with the absolutism again.

        The Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good with absolutists.

        A ninety-nine percent success rate is as demeaning as abject failure to them, and this infantile mental mechanism has been exploited ruthlessly by the Leave campaigns.

      • libertarian
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:27 am | Permalink


        Of for crying out loud

        The first official lead restrictions for paint were released in 1954 by the American Standards Association. Lead in children toys was banned in UK in 1963

        CFC’s in Fridges ( and aerosols) was eventually banned following the Montreal Convention ( just so you know Andy Montreal isn’t in the EU )

        HOW MANY MORE TIMES do you need to be told ALL GOODS entering ANY jurisdiction anywhere in the world MUST conform to the standards of those markets. Thats why most standards are fairly GLOBAL

        What is FRICTIONLESS about shipping goods around Europe that isn’t FRICTIONLESS shipping goods between say Canada & USA or UK and Australia ?

        You like most remainers with no knowledge of business thinks that people just stuff something in the back of a truck and drive it to France no questions asked..

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

          Only an utter fool would try to claim that Andy’s examples were anything more than typically illustrative “for instances”.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 8:05 am | Permalink

            If you use several examples to prove your claim is true as young Andy did and they get completely demolished, then it is customary to climb down and not make yourself look even more foolish by coming up with your weak excuse.

          • libertarian
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink


            Sorry thought he was being infantile absolutist

            Shame he could not come up with any that were factually correct but then thats the problem with remainers , no acquaintance with facts , only emotions

            The problem with you EU fan boys is you believe that the EU is the font of all wisdom, driven by “experts” who design directives ( laws that aren’t passed by parliament) that are all for the good of humanity . The truth is that most EU directives and regulations are minimum standard required and aren’t as robust as lots of other advanced countries. Most of them devised by big corporates to prevent innovators disrupting their markets

            Glad to help

        • Kent grower
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

          That is exactly what I do – truckload of veg over to France, easy peasy. Im told that stops on 1 November, unless MPs pass the deal. So that you angry pensioners can have your blue passports. Brexit is utter stupidity.

          • Shirley
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 4:49 am | Permalink

            I thought Remainers claimed we wouldn’t have any food, so why would you be exporting it instead of feeding the UK?

          • Edward2
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

            Who tells you that?
            Will UK customs refuse to allow your truck through?
            Or are you claiming some Eurooean customs person will refuse to allow your truck through?
            And on what legal grounds.
            PS Please explain how my local shops are full of fruit and vegetables from a large number of non EU nations.
            How did they get in?

          • libertarian
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink

            Kent Grower

            Yes and ALL your produce has to comply with the EU Food Safety Standards which is what I said.

            You need to get out more. If we are stopping food after Brexit would have thought you’d be well off selling it here

            Just got a brand new passport, its Burgandy.

            I export to Europe as well as Canada , Brazil and Japan

            ps you might want to check the EU interim deal on cross border customs flows post Brexit

          • a-tracy
            Posted September 15, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

            Kent grower, who told you ‘that stops on 1 November’ a government agency? Farmers Union? Have you had absolutely no advice about how to proceed?

  18. Mick
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.
    Exactly but while we have a Parliament mainly full of chicken lived remoaners who are too scared to face the people in a General Election we are at stalemate, so it’s going to have to come down to Mr Johnson to show some good old British spirit and to carry out his threat of leaving on the 31st of October come what May and suffer the consequences later that’s if there is any , only a landslide majority in Parliament for the conservatives

    • MPC
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:28 am | Permalink

      I admire your optimism about how an election can solve everything. However Leave won the referendum through people lending us support in good faith. They, like us, a now thoroughly sick of Parliament’s antics and many will say at election time ‘what’s the point ‘. I hope I am wrong but I can only see a future of low turnouts and indecisive coalition governments within the EU.

  19. Sea Warrior
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    And should the country that gifted the World the principle of Habeas Corpus remain subservient to the ECHR? I think not – but let’s save that question for our next battle.

    • Andy
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:13 am | Permalink

      We are also the country that gifted the world the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Based on British principles and written by British lawyers as we rebuilt from the ashes of WW2. The European Court of Human Rights interprets the values of Churchill. One wonders why you object to it so much.

      Still – at least you appear to realise it is nothing to do with the EU. Which is one up on 99% of Brexiteers.

      • Sea Warrior
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        The ECHR has delivered many judgements that have vexed the British people. It often shows itself detached from common-sense.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:17 am | Permalink

      Indeed, especially as the ECHR Judges clearly stretch “Human Rights” to mean almost anything that they want it to mean depending on their mood.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Give an example?

        You can’t, can you?

        Incidentally, not long ago ECHR ruled in Russia’s favour, that A Right To A Private And Family Life does not trump a country’s right to expel criminals.

        Try to remember that, yes?

        • Edward2
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

          One example of many is the inability to deport serious criminals who appeal against being sent back to their home country if they have fathered children here in the UK.

        • Pud
          Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

          You asked for an example: In January 2012, the ECHR blocked the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan.

    • hefner
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      Sea Warrior, well I would not be getting drunk with the Habeas Corpus wine … as a number of countries without actual reference to HC have in their written constitutions several guarantees against arbitrary detention. In most cases, their local Codes of Criminal Procedure includes procedural safeguards implementing these guarantees. Their local Penal Codes furthermore provide for harsh penalties for judges or civil servants who had ordered or tolerated arbitrary detentions.
      And funnily enough, such bits of law are all present in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the previous name of the ECHR) that entered into force in September 1953, so well before the EEC/EU.

      So where in the future would you prefer to be dealt with by the law and its officers?
      I would think it would be a very difficult question to answer and not obviously as you infer to the benefit of the UK.

  20. tooley stu
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Common law, for example magna carta 1215, declaration of rights 1688 is superior to statute law. These are agreements between the crown and people, and cannot be revoked vy parliament. These agreement allow parliament to govern, not rule.

    • G Wilson
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

      Your description is exactly the opposite of our real constitution.

      Statute law is superior to common law, and has been for a very long time. There’s plenty of examples of statutes replacing or augmenting common law provisions.

      To understand this, one needs only to know the foundation principle of our constitution: “What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.”

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:24 am | Permalink

        I have seen this same simple fact stated many times, but you are wasting your time, just as I have many times, I think, G. Wilson.

        These people apparently do not understand the meaning of the terms that they parrot, nor care either.

        Like a tribal chant, all that matters is that the words are the same as the rest of their cohort are uttering, it seems.

  21. Kevin
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    This is well put. Parliament implicitly endorsed Mr. Johnson’s right to prorogue
    once it turned down his offer of an election. If his exercise of prerogative can be
    made out to be a “coup” then I would call the alternative a legislative junta,
    meaning that Parliament is both passing and carrying out the laws. If the courts
    yield to that reality, shouldn’t they judicially review our new Corbyn government?

  22. Fred H
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Sir John,
    I noted your wording ‘relatively free society’ and ‘decisions by Judges’ and ‘Statute law commands respect’ and ‘courts do not always “obey”’ In such cases Parliament can legislate again to give a clearer instruction to the courts.
    What about in cases where Parliament defies the will of the people? How do the people give clearer instruction to Parliament? We all know what that means, but Parliament and Judges plus other areas of the Establishment, demonstrate a disdain for the will of the people.
    The French have a regularly demonstrated method of instruction, is it time the British followed suit? So far you have never included my comments along these lines, it is about time you did. The people are a seething troubled mass, who need to see an end to this denial of rights.

    Reply I do not support the use of non democratic or violent means to political ends. The way we deal with a Parliament that refuses to carry out the popular will is to change it in an election.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      When we finally get an election and if the next government has not already been stitched up and is bound up by May WA treaty or similar.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 4:36 am | Permalink

        Here here

    • forthurst
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

      Reply to Reply

      I would expect by now that the complacent and self-satisfied who represent the LibLabCon but not the people realised that they have reached the end of the road in terms of the tolerance of the people. The people have no means of conveying their instructions via the ballot box, none whatsoever, and you people know it and continue to lie that they can, nevertheless. Did the English working class vote Labour in order to unleash a flood of unassimilable aliens into their communities? No, they did not. Did patriotic English vote Tory in order to remain trapped in the EU? No, they did not. What Englishman wanted to go to war in the ME? None. Get rid of the FPTP system which has been used repeatedly to allow sectional interests, some of alien extraction, to ride rough shod over the English people in deciding and fulfilling their destiny as a people and a nation. You are all traitors so long as you deprive us of our right to fair elections in which we decide the agenda of our representatives and ensure that it is carried out.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 4:39 am | Permalink

        The main problem with FPTP is the marginal seats are the only ones that matter. Win those, and you get to form the next government.

    • Neil Turrell
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      But, John, what do we do if parliament, in league with a bent, ‘creative’ speaker, holds a minority government in no mans land indefinitely? Are you saying we should quietly accept our fate while our rights are diminished or taken away by speaker enabled parliamentary junta?

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply. It might be too late then John

  23. Mike Wilson
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    It is not easy to ‘remove from office those who failed to deliver the referendum’. The first past the post system distorts everything forcing tactical voting and making most constituencies completely safe. Can you imagine anyone other than a Tory in Wokingham? Why? Because most people vote for who they don’t want. Not for who they do want.

    Reply Wokingham electors make up their minds on the evidence. In 2017 they had the choice of the Lib Dems if they wanted a second referendum and wanted to reverse the referendum, and decided to put the Lib Dems in a poor third place based on that policy

    • Fred H
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      Sir John, Wokingham is a rather non-typical constituency. Relatively wealthy, well educated, mixed older comfortably off with young aspirational people. We were served previous to yourself with an old school Conservative, and you have repeatedly earned re-election, notwithstanding your opposition to the majority view on Brexit. Around the country I sense a much more frustrated even angry position on the last 3 years legal juggling, not least the horrendous scorpion dance of our ex-PM. Just how do we the people force a GE? The longer this nonsense goes on the lower the chance of Conservatives winning, let alone getting even close to a majority. The only way forward is to deal with the momentum of Farage and LEAVING. The rest is merely noise on the populist media agenda. The ballot box is everything.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 5:25 am | Permalink

      Don’t tell us you are suggesting there is no such thing as a safe seat? You make my point. Despite the appalling mess the Tories have got us into, you still get voted in. Why? Because you have done such a great job? I think not. People know if they don’t vote Tory they are likely to get a Labour government. So they hold their noses and vote Tory. And vice versa in ‘Labour areas’. In a general election only marginal constituencies get any attention.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        At the next election unhappy Labour and Conservative voters will have the new option of voting for the Brexit Party.

  24. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Look on the bright side. In a GE, anyone wanting to stay in the EU will vote Libdem.
    The don’t knows vote Labour.

    Should the Tory party be freed of Morgan, Rudd & Co. we can safely say the Leaves vote Tory or Brexit.

    If there are still remainers in the Tory party, Remain will claim the Tory vote for themselves.

  25. Bernard from Bucks.
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    “…then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.”
    And, remove them, we shall.

  26. David Maples
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    ‘…All our current domestic law and all the powers of government, Parliament and courts are subordinate to the EU Treaties, EU regulations and directives and to judgements of the European Court of Justice. An EU law can override or strike down an Act of Parliament or a judgement of our Supreme Court if appealed to the ECJ…’

    With respect Sir John, I beg to differ. Legally you are correct, however no independent, sovereign nation can be irreversibly bound by treaty to the jurisdiction of other sovereign bodies. If you are right, then Parliament could even now appeal to the ECJ to have the Withdrawal Act and Article 50 Act, struck down. The recent experience of Catalonia clearly demonstrates that regions within nations must have recognized sovereignty in order to break away. Scotland would likewise need to be granted sovereignty by a referendum and an Act of Parliament. Our Parliament does not and never has had, the right to surrender any part of its legitimate authority, which is why the 1972 European Communities Act and the Maastricht Treaty cannot be seen as binding on Parliament, and are intrinsically unconstitutional. Also, no Parliament can be bound by the decisions of previous parliaments. If this were the case, it follows that no statute could ever be repealed.

  27. Alison M
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Hi John
    Please could you do a point by point review of the Lisbon treaty like you did for the withdrawal agreement? You probably did one way back when Gordon Brown surreptitiously signed us up to it.
    The anti-democratic coup in Parliament is after all trying no to sign us up to it.
    Many thanks

  28. Alison M
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Trying to

  29. Dominic
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    This is all meaningless, cryptic legalese. In the real world political power is the only thing that prevails and Leave simply do not have the political leverage, the political organisation and the political will to guarantee the delivery of the result of the EU referendum of 2016

    We expect treachery from Labour. It is after all what they are and what they represent. I have always expected higher standards of behaviour from the party that I used to vote for but since the EU vote of 2016 the party and some of those who inhabit it have been exposed for what they truly are.

    I couldn’t give two hoots about the Supreme Court decision. It is an irrelevance in the greater scheme of things.

    With Letwin and his grubby Remain cohorts plotting and scheming the fight to deliver democracy goes on.

    I know only one thing. Voting Conservative or Labour will never deliver Leave. These two parties refuse to recognise the will of the people. Johnson will deliver a Remain fudge.

  30. Andy
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    The particularly amusing thing is that Brexit will almost certainly end up in the ECJ.

    Judges in Luxembourg will have to rule on something Brexit related.

    This will infuriate the Brexiteers – it will be a joy to watch.

    I will particularly enjoy it if the ECJ rules in the Brexiteers favour. That would be amusing.

  31. Lifelogic
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has said the military needs to be “on the right side of the environmental argument” to attract young Britons, and that to do it, it must pour money into developing low-carbon military vehicles.

    Does he mean sailing ships and bicycles?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      Tanks that work on pedal power perhaps (should keep the soldiers fit), military jets powered by rubber bands wound up using a water or wind turbines perhaps? What planet are these total idiots on?

      • Mitchel
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

        As they used to say in the Cold War-a little prematurely at the time-“If you are feeling optimistic,start learning Russian;if pessimistic,Chinese.”!

    • Yellow Fist
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      It’s a good idea to put all our Eco-warriors on the front line. Is there no further promotion The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith can be given?

    • Sea Warrior
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      I really don’t think that his tanks are allowed enough track miles to cause any serious pollution. The Army has made itself look very silly.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 5:34 am | Permalink

        How many battle ready tanks have we got?

        Are we expecting to get involved in a war where tanks will play a role? How would we transport them? The navy only has half a dozen ships. Where are we off to? Are the pesky Russians going to invade Europe? Surely we did our bit in the last show. Let the EU defend itself with its own army.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 4:46 am | Permalink

      Well bicycles worked for the Japanese when they invaded Singapore.

  32. BJC
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Thank you for explaining so clearly how “the system” should be working and the genuine freedom it offers us. Our laws are incompatible with EU law, as they basically legislate to permit, whereas we legislate to prohibit. Of course, if you’re only allowed to do something when it’s legislated, it’s no longer a freedom.

    The restoration of supremacy for our common laws will be fundamental to our successful and prosperous future, providing the authority for shaping how we deal with all the other concerns expressed during the referendum campaign. Sort this one aspect out and, subject to the UK’s needs, the rest can follow without outside influences holding us to ransom.

  33. gyges01
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    I wonder to what extent Sumption’s irrational hatred of referenda as expressed in the Reith lectures has undermined the Judiciary?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      Referendums are usually good as the people are wiser (closer to the coal face) and more knowledgeable than ‘group think’ art graduate MPs. We would have had no ERM, no recent EU treaties, no ECHR, no counter productive wars on a lie, no expensive energy agenda, no HS2 , no Millennium dome, no special tax laws for EU bureaucrats, MPs and Lords, sensible tax levels, no Scottish or Welsh Parliaments, far less government , police who tackled real crimes with some real deterrents, immigration at sensible levels and with quality controls, more freedom and more choice ……..

  34. mickc
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    The UK will never leave the EU, no matter what the will of the people.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      It is with a heavy heart that I must agree.


  35. None of the Above
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    I won’t restate understood and well made points about what our Parliament is doing but I will say why and how.
    The Government has lost it’s majority, not by the will of the Electorate, but by a significant number of MPs who have acted contrary to the Manifestos on which they were elected.
    Some have even changed Party and refused to offer their Constituents a say in a By-Election. As a result The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is being abused in order to deny the People their right to vote. Surely such an undemocratic situation should be tested by the highest Court in the land.
    Is it not logical that the above Act, not to mention Parliaments most recent Frankenstein-like creation, could be struck down by The Supreme Court?

  36. Iain Moore
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    I am always surprised how the Conservative party has survived for so long, when so inept.

    The charge against the Government is that it has politicised the courts by comments made by Ministers and advisors. No, this should have been thrown back at the Remainer media by saying the courts are being politicised by the blizzard of vexatious cases the Remainers are having the courts look at. Why has no one questioned the motive of having the English , Scottish and NI courts look at essentially the same thing at the same time? Simple, they were maximising the chance of scoring in one, which they got in the Scottish courts, and that is then used by the Remainer media for their headlines for the next few days . The cases that go against them in England and NI slips down their memory hole.

    The win they get is used to slander Boris as a liar , it seems debasement of the office of PM is fine as long as its the Remainers doing it , with the BBC asking Boris ‘Are you a liar?’ a question designed to demean him, but why Oh why didn’t the No 10 media operation plan for such a hatchet job question and have the reply ready…’We are going to hold a Queen’s speech in October, and that will show you that your question to be in error, and I shall be looking forward to your fulsome apology’.

  37. robert lewy
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Somewhat of topic but I think that lies about No Deal need to be put to rest.

    The Government issued the document “The process of withdrawing from the European Union in February 2016. The link is below:-

    Section 5.5 reads as follows:

    An extension to the two year deadline would also require the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining Member States. Without such an extension, if after two years no deal were reached, or the UK were not able to accept the deal that was offered, exit would take place automatically and without any protection for the rights of UK business to trade on a preferential basis with Europe, UK citizens to live in Europe, or UK travellers to move about freely in Europe.

    The above demonstrates the lie perpetrated by significant Remain elements that no one voted for No Deal. It is patently obvious that HMG was fully cognisant of the fact that if negotiations did not result in a deal that could be accepted we would leave without a deal.
    This document was available to all to read and none can claim that No Deal was not an outcome which might follow from a vote to Leave.

  38. Polly
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    ”If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.”

    That sounds very optimistic.

    Do you think there has been deliberate subversion of the democratic process ?

    If there has been subversion, what has been it’s form, and what has been it’s effect ?

    If the answer is Yes, is Britain actually capable of withstanding subversion of it’s institutions… or could this even lead to national collapse ?

    Do you think national collapse might suit certain globalist investors ?


    Reply I do not intend to publish posts that name individuals and blame them for things you do not like about the current situation when it would be difficult to prove their culpability.

    • steve
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink


      “Do you think national collapse might suit certain globalist investors ?”

      JR might understandably err on the side of caution regarding some posts, remember it’s a lawyer’s world these days.

      However I would like to comment on your question above:-

      In any crisis there’s always someone who profits, even by coincidence, it’s the way of things and was always thus.

      The important thing is to believe in the power of the ballot box, we all know who stands to gain by keeping us in the EU, and we all know who is attempting to subvert democracy – and why. At some point there will have to be a general election, and that is where we will ensure the removal of those going against the referendum.

      The next election will be like no other, Those MP’s denying our will are going to find it extremely cruel.

      It’s on it’s way, keep faith !

  39. mark leigh
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Just wondering……

    If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Session ruling, would the case then get taken to the ECJ?

    There would be an irony ! But if, as is often stated, we are subordinate to the ECJ, why would it not get sent there?

  40. Lynn Atkinson
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Problem for the electorate is that in most seats they chose between a Remainer or a Remainer. Constituency Parties must recover the power to select their candidate freely (no doctored Party List).

    • Shirley
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Hear, hear. That has been the case for decades, where we only had a choice of a pro-Remain party, or another pro-Remain party … until Farage and UKIP came along.

    • Fred H
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      Not next time – BP is waiting in the wings.

  41. Graham Wood
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Sir John. The Daily Telegraph reports (James Crisp 13th Sept.) that “British officials (sic) have told the EU Commission they will accept all of Theresa May’s Brexit deal except the Irish backstop ahead of a meeting between Boris Johnson and Juncker”.

    Whether this is factually based or speculation is not explained as we have only the words of the report, but if this a reflection of BJ’s policy then clearly it is not leaving the EU, and the UK would remain in the CU and most of the SM in those circumstances.

    One has to ask therefore who are these “British officials” and who gave them authority to give their assent to the May/EU WA which has been rejected by parliament three times, and which is so clearly at variance with the result of the 2016 referendum?
    If BJ is contemplating this course then as many have pointed out here and repeatedly that this would be political suicide by the Conservative party and that both the Brexit party and the electorate would wreak a terrible revenge on the Conservative party at the polls and probable political oblivion for decades to come.
    Can this self inflicted, if not fatal wound, really be BJ’s objective?

  42. Javelin
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Starter for 10. Who said …

    I will implement what you decide. There will be no second referendum.

    Then said …

    I was off my face on dope at school. I want a second referendum.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      Might it possibly have been – Cast Iron promise, I’m a low tax at heart “Conservative” and fake Eurosceptic Mr call me Dave?

    • Fred H
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      answer: any Libdem?

  43. Norman
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Reading your post, Sir John, and some of the insightful comments above, I am struck with how blessed this country has been, and what a gracious heritage we have had. The question is, from whence did it come, and how did it come about? To my mind, it’s all the fruit of the Gospel of Christ – a divine testimony that was not only heard, but believed and acted upon in our land, facilitated by the likes of the Marian Martyrs, the Puritans and the Evangelical awakening of the 18th Century. What a price was paid by these faithful souls! They walked in the footsteps of the Master: “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation” (Lk 19:41-44). The destruction came in AD70, under Titus:
    It’s down to each of us to respond to the Gospel, before its too late. ‘For if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ (Psalm 11:3).

    • Ed M
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:07 pm | Permalink


      The (Catholic) Church (and many Protestants) has always espoused a nation’s SOVEREIGNTY – which is also connected to the Christian virtue of PATRIOTISM, formulated by theologians such as Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages.

      And then we had St Joan Joan of Arc, the greatest (religious) patriot in history, who aged 17, and an uneducated peasant girl, drove the enemies of France out of their lands (most famously Siege of Orleans 1428), leading directly to the coronation of the king(Charles VII) at Reims in 1429. Notice here the connection between SOVEREIGNTY + PATRIOTISM + MONARCH (all Christian in origin).

      And notice the Christian origins of Magna Carta (not just secular as some think), Parliament, The Judiciary, Oxford, Cambridge, Grammar Schools, Guilds, beautiful Cathedrals and art and architecture in general.

      Things were far from perfect back then but there was a strong system in place for civilisation to flourish. And look what happens when the modern world turns secular. The whole framework of our age-old civilisation is tested to the hilt.

      I favour full sovereignty for religious reasons (as well as ethical and practical) but it must be won through the same values that established sovereignty as we know it best all those centuries ago back in Christian England and Europe. Values written in Church doctrine and lived out through the lives of magnificent patriots such as Joan of Arc (England has had its Joan of Arcs as well – lots of little Joan of Arcs, men and women, not ones that stands out like the famous one, but nevertheless British Joan of Arcs in particular during WW2 – defending our country and defeating Nazism).

      And at the heart of patriotism: SACRIFICE (spirit of), connected to faith, humility, and generosity of spirit.

      God bless England / UK

      • Ed M
        Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

        Fully supporting sovereignty – sovereignty that must be won in an honourable as opposed to a dishonourable way. Honourable as in (at its extreme) the patriotic virtue of a St Joan of Arc as opposed to (at its extreme) the dishonourable vice of a German Nazi from WW2.

        I make no judgement except to say Brexit will only work and be a long-term success if follows more the virtues of Joan of Arc than the vices of German Nazis from WW2.

        Lastly, Brexit is only one of many huge issues affecting the long-term health and prosperity and happiness of its people – and the same principle applies here about following the lives of people such as Joan of Arc (to take an extreme example) as opposed to the lives of people such as WW2 German Nazis (to take another extreme example).

    • Ed M
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:47 pm | Permalink


      And whether Brexit happens or doesn’t happen / is a great success or great failure, we need to look ahead to re-building the Conservative Party – and I think by looking first of all at the Christian values and thought of its main philosophical founder: Edmund Burke!

      Phoenix from the ashes

  44. oldwulf
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr Johnson

    There is so much I could write, but what’s the point ?

    Please get us out by 31 October either under a so called “no deal” or something better.

    Parliament is seeking to subvert the democratic vote. The courts may or may or may not seek to do the same. Will you please do what it takes.

  45. Kathleen P
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    The word today is that Boris is going to agree May’s Withdrawal Treaty with a bit of tinkering around the backstop and renaming it. If this means the continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ then we have not become a free sovereign nation. If he thinks the Tories will not be severely punished for this by people who knew exactly what they were voting for, he is sadly mistaken.

  46. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I thought EU law was no longer superior to UK law as the relevant act of parliament was recently repealed. Am I wrong ?

    Reply That law only comes into effect the day we leave the EU

    • steve
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Roy Grainger

      Well the majority of us don’t recognise EU law anyway, and never did. One of the prime reasons for a leave majority.

  47. jane4brexit
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Exactly and as the PM is Her Majesty’s Prime Minister I think their conversations and what was intended by them, should be between themselves only.

    But if this quote said to be from The Telegraph is true, then our Courts will no longer be the problem. Boris and our so called government will be, as if such a WA is signed our Courts will only be deciding on what Boris and MPs agreed ie: our “colony status” as Verhofstadt called it, not easily found live online but tweets including excerpts of the BBC programme showing him saying it still exist, if searched for using the relevant words and this:

    “British officials have told the European Commission they will accept all of Theresa May’s Brexit deal, except the Irish border backstop, ahead of a meeting between Boris Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday.

    The revelation, coming as David Frost meets EU officials for talks in Brussels today, has raised fears among Tory Brexiteers that Boris Johnson is preparing to foist a May 2.0 deal on the UK, despite Mr Johnson’s insistence that the withdrawal agreement “is dead”. “

    • steve
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink


      Re May 2.0;

      If they dare to construct such a fudge, it’s curtains for them. Mr Farage won’t touch them with a bargepole, and we’ll destroy them at the next election.

      Personally I’d like to see Boris defying Parliament and Blair’s supreme court…..which has no jurisdiction as far as I’m concerned, since Blair created it on the back of treason against the House of Lords.

      We shall see, but there will be trouble, that much is certain.

      • jane4brexit
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

        Definitely. There an article I have seen posted online “Boris Johnson: With a Bound Set Free (2019) “, by someone called Sean Gabb, which suggests Boris uses Blair’s Civil Contingencies Act 2004, a nice irony if it got Brexit, it is worth a read and says:

        “The Act defines “emergency” as just about anything the authorities may dislike. One possible definition is “an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom.” (s.1(1)) This sounds a promising excuse. It seems to cover what the Opposition claims would be the effect of a No-Deal Brexit.

        Triggering the Act requires no more than “a senior Minister of the Crown” – that is, Boris Johnson – to announce an Emergency. This done, he can make, alter or suspend almost any law he likes. (s.22) He can do this for a period of thirty days….”

  48. Shirley
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    We need more accountability. Virtually all the Remain MP’s were elected on their pre-election promises to respect the result of the referendum. They obtained their votes through deceit, and having got themselves elected they reneged on their promises. We really need the ability to demand bi-elections of these MP’s, and those who swamp parties. A GE would not be quite so important then, as we could discard the undemocratic rabble at will.

    • Shirley
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      Apologies: *swap parties, not swamp.

  49. Alan Joyce
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr. Redwood,

    Although the majority of MP’s would like us to stay in the EU after October 31st, Parliament is not seeking a way to get us to remain. It is and always has been looking for a way to get us to leave – but in name only.

    Why was May’s deal concocted as it was? So that Parliament could say that it had fulfilled the wishes of the British people by taking us out of the EU but in reality we would still be bound by it. Boris Johnson is currently engaged in a similar exercise just without the backstop.

    He will bring back a version of May’s WA and try to get it through the Commons on the back of Labour votes. It’s that or another delay and another and another…..

    Remember the heady days just after Mr. Johnson took over as PM? Hopes and expectations for a clean Brexit soared. And now? Well, let’s hope it will soon fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.

    • steve
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      Alan Joyce

      “Remember the heady days just after Mr. Johnson took over as PM? Hopes and expectations for a clean Brexit soared. And now? Well, let’s hope it will soon fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.”

      But to be fair to Boris that was before Corbyn, the Liberals, the resident Jacobites, and a clearly left wing traitor – speaker buggered up the country by refusing to face the music.

      Though I tend to agree…..we the electors will get these monkeys out at the next election and make damn sure they never hold publicly funded office ever again.

      They won’t even get served in shops or be able to board public transport by the time we’re done.

  50. A.Sedgwick
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    The power of the ECJ over the UK is the fundamental Brexit question. The Remoaners go on about Leave voters not knowing what they were voting for; many Remain voters may not have known the extent of our subservience and how ultimately Remain means the UK being part of a federal EU, being in the Euro and Schengen and escalating cost of membership. The Remoaners have hidden this reality and are deceitful in the extreme.

    • Kent grower
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      We have an opt out from the euro and Schengen. You impress no one by lying

      • a-tracy
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

        Both opt outs were skirted around, one in 2015 whilst our government wasn’t sitting and Darling snuck off the the EU and agreed to bail out the Euro countries. Schengen is overlooked with side agreements to take in whatever people we are told to.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 15, 2019 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

          Indeed a-tracy.
          The opt out is able to be overturned by any pro EU future Parliament.
          Blair threw away a hard won budget reduction in our payments to the EU in return for promises never delivered by the EU.

  51. James Matthews
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    For the electorate to remove from office the people who has refused to implement the referendum result there first has to be an election. That is not looking very likely at present. Even then the FPTP system will make it very difficult to replace them with others who will implement it. If the leave vote is split between the Eurosceptic Tories and the Brexit party, as it will be if there is no electoral pact, there will be at least a 50/50 chance of a Lib/Lab coalition. That will be the end of Brexit.

  52. ukretired123
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    David Cameron suggesting a second referendum beggars belief given his cast-iron assurances of honouring whatever the outcome, once in a generation lifetime vote in 2016.
    Jumping ship the next day exposed him as untrustworthy – the heir to Blair quote Osborne.
    Pumping up the volume on his memoirs after 3 years of ‘garden leave’ he attempts to rewrite history thinking we have amnesia.
    He admits he took dope at Eton and beyond but I think he has smoked out his promises too and is still sounding dopey – he lacked Boris’ s charisma and bottled it underestimating ordinary people’s expectations from the bubbly bubble.

  53. Geoffrey Berg
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    We are supposed to be a democracy-yet Judges make important political decisions and are accountable to nobody, least of all the general public.
    Furthermore the vast majority of Judges nowadays are left wing and bring their biases into Court and into their Court Decisions. More mundanely they have long been undermining law and order and in effect encouraging crime by their derisory sentences for most things – what’s the pointof the Police catching criminals if the judges won’t curb them?
    The notion of an impartial, independent judiciary is a nice idea but it is time we recognise the reality that it is just not happening. We therefore need to make Judges publicly accountable either by being directly elected (as mostly happens in the United States of America) or otherwise make them time contracted appointees of the elected government.
    Furthermore the notion that Judges should come from lawyers is fallacious. Lawyers just argue cases for the side that pays them. Judges need to determine what actually happened.In criminal cases retired policemen would be better Judges and in civil cases university employees could be better.

  54. ian
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    We are now the only country in the EU whos people can not have a referendum where the people make the final decision without it having to go back to the country parliament for the final decision and maybe in the world, the people of the UK have lost another birthright.
    This decision by our high court needs to be taken to the EU ECJ for a final ruling because if the UK people cannot have a referendum with people making the final decision, then that would also have to apply to the other 27 countries in the EU by an ECJ ruling.
    John, you must not let them get away with this and apply for at ECJ ruling on this matter if you do not, to me you and your party and follows are all just remainers.
    Scotland and NI who will have refs coming up in years to come will be in the same situation as England when their ref is called, they will not have the final decision the UK parliament will make that.

    • Kees
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Ian – you have been taught from birth to defer to your betters and then when the day came June 2016 for you to decide, collectively, on the biggest thing affecting UK of this generation and for future generations, you failed miserably. But not all is lost good enlightened people in the EU recognize that this is not totally your fault, yesterday we had the apology from D Cameron but there were far more than D Cameron over the forty years or so including our host JR, IDS, Gove, Bill Cash giving out false propoganda and lies, including many other politicals who allowed the rag press day after day without speaking out to blame everything that was wrong with Britain on the EU- they too have an awful lot to answer for. So then I believe the EU is going to try to say you from yourselves, collectively, but somehow you’ve got to get some analytical discussion and handle on what is going on and what went wrong- and not be always blaming outsiders for your problems

      • Edward2
        Posted September 15, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

        Such a cliché
        All 17.4 million leave voters were misled.
        Yet all pro EU voters were clever and correct.
        The usual snobby insulting nonsense from remainers like you Kees.

  55. ian
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Referendums in the UK are now just opinion polls but in the EU they still mean something.

    • BR
      Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Yes indeed – in the EU, the meaning of a referendum is that another vote is needed if the result is not what the EU wanted.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink


      Yes they mean you vote again until you get it right ….smh

  56. ian
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    The UK has always been an undemocratic country since MPs are untouchable when parliament is sitting and the PM alone picks the cabinet, it has always been an elected dictatorship as is any country without recall legislation on MPs when the people parliament sitting for the elected term of 4 or 5 years.

  57. BR
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    While I agree with the article entirely, removing the incumbents from parliament is no longer enough.

    What we have seen in recent times is MPs stand on a manifesto, state publicly and unequivocally that they will uphold it, then work extremely hard and in increasingly devious ways for the exact opposite.

    As long as there is no right of recall unless they commit a criminal offence AND are jailed for > 12 months the public are stymied for 5 years. Some unscrupulous MPs are clearly taking advantage of rules that do not work. Or at least, they only worked n the days when MPs behaved with some degree of honour in respecting the rules and norms.

    The key question is not about the involvement of the judiciary, it is about how the people can properly hold parliament to account in modern times. After all, we cannot ask a judge to review the conduct of an MP who stands on one manifesto then does something else, since it’s not illegal. Perhaps it should be? With a minimum term of 13 months, of course.

  58. Yorkie
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Fake News says there was a ‘backlash’ in Yorkshire when Boris visited us. The ‘backlash’ was one heckler. He didn’t sound Yorkshire. We have a always had a problem with Lancastrians boating in. Losers!

  59. ian
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Sir John does not like recall and wouldn’t vote for it if you had recall politician would not be acting as they are, you would be able to replace them while they are sitting in parliament.

    All PMs in parliament against the will of people at the moment could be replaced by you within 2 to 3 months of recall which would end your problem of PMs doing what they like after being elected to do your bidding.

  60. Katy Hibbert
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    If Parliament finds a way to get us to remain in the EU after October 31, then it will fall to the electorate to remove from office those who have failed to implement the will of the people.

    Problem is they won’t let us have an election and kick them out.

  61. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    OK look, an Irishman does not understand what has happened – that if:

    “For the first time since 1171, Ireland is more powerful than Britain”

    then that is down to British traitors colluding with the Irish government.

    So really it is a case of British and Irish political leaders acting jointly to crush the British people, and I don’t think one necessarily has to go back as far as 1171 to find something like a precedent for that.

    Just as he brought a Scottish army down on the English in 1648, so a few years earlier Charles I was hoping to use Irish troops to regain control in England. And as a strategic concept that is not unlike what the traitor Theresa May did when she colluded with Leo Varadkar to make a mountain out of a molehill on the Irish border and use that to keep the whole of the UK under swathes of EU laws in perpetuity.

    • MikeD
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      Denis – exactly- the involvement of kings especially English kings in Irelands affairs has been disastrous for the country and the people. So you can keep your royalty and your Parliament we are getting on alright by ourselves. Tks

  62. tim
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    We need to understand. The PM most of the MPs the house of lords and judiciary are puppets. Imagine watching punch and Judy, and getting mad and shouting at the puppets. It will not make any difference. The people who have their hands up the puppets decide what will happen. And we will remain a vassal state to the EU, and this huge parasite will steadily suck all the life from our once great country. This may go on for 20 years or 40 years, it will make no difference. Pretty depressing but reality!

  63. Kees
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    What happens if the Queen speaks out at her Queens Speech and tells it as she sees it?

    I might add- otherwise what is the point in a Queens Speech unless she tells it as she sees it- and don’t tell me about tradition, seperation of powers and all that old nonsense

    • libertarian
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 12:07 pm | Permalink


      Really? You seriously posted that after your rant about people being misled by politicians … you actually posted that

      Keep drinking the Kool Aid

  64. Martinez
    Posted September 14, 2019 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Somewhere along the way I lost respect for the English. It’s better you go now asap and not bother us further

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 6:52 am | Permalink

      Martinez, can you get your lot to veto the traitors request for an extension then please? We can leave by the end of October. Quite frankly we can’t wait. If we have to stay in any longer I would like to see our side making things more difficult for the EU.

    • Fred H
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 7:02 am | Permalink

      Your opinion on the Scots, Welsh, N.Irish?

    • Ian terry
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 7:16 am | Permalink


      Simple get your politicians to veto any extensions or further political contact with the UK

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      Bit daft to lose respect for all the people in a country.

    • Edward2
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      We are trying to leave Martinez.
      We love Europe and it’s people.
      It is just the EU we don’t like very much.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 12:09 pm | Permalink


      No problem mate, we’re trying to leave. Dont lose too much respect old fruit we may end up being your only hope of getting a job

    • tim
      Posted September 15, 2019 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      Martinez– have you lost respect for the £billions that you get from the UK, I think not. If you lot just veto the extension you are rid of us. But over a £billion a month means you will not let us go, so have a lot of respect for our money that keeps you lot afloat.

  65. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 15, 2019 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    One of the reasons that Bercow gave for allowing Hilary Benn and his allies to introduce his grotty anti-No Deal Bill was that it was “not a money bill”. Since a No Deal Brexit without a transition period would lead to a substantial reduction in the £39 billion exit fee that Mrs May agreed to pay, it very much IS a money bill, and it was unconstitutional to allow back benchers to introduce it. Therefore, Mr Johnson has every right to disobey the law that has resulted.

    Since Mr Johnson appears to be wobbling, it would be a good idea for Sir John to remind him that the Benn Act is unconstitutional.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • 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