The extent to which the corporatist political British establishment has now captured and overturned the democratic process has never been clearer. Arbitrary law, ignoring the will of the people, the denial of elections and unelected judges overturning Government – it is difficult to define Fascist politics more succinctly.
In 2016 the British people voted to restore their national self government, the powers of their parliament, their laws and control over their nation’s borders. They insisted in joining the 160 plus nation states of the world which govern themselves and make free agreements with other free nations for the purposes of trade and cooperation.
The British political establishment – from MPs to the civil service to the legal profession – thought that the people were stupid and should be ignored.
What is laughingly called “The Supreme Court” (only the people are supreme in a democracy) has just declared the normal democratic process of proroguing parliament at this time of year for the purposes of ending a (record) session, presenting a Queen’s Speech and breaking for the party conference season, was “illegal”. They object to the length of that prorogation and its motivation.
This matter has never been the subject of legal precedent and the Court, by intervening uniquely in this situation (and not in other recent controversial prorogations) has debased the Law and attacked democracy. On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales had dismissed the same claim by Miller, Major et al on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law (but came rightly under the procedures of Parliament and established Government precedent.)
These 11 Judges* however have intervened in a normal and accepted procedure whereby Government prorogues parliament (in this case with the extra loss of a paltry 4 days of sittings) even though that Parliament reconvened on 3rd September and enacted a coup against the elected Government. The Judges themselves pithily describe what happened when that poor exploited, “illegally” prorogued Parliament sat:
the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September.
Does that sound like democracy at work? What would normally have taken months was rushed through both Houses without proper debate in 6 days, centuries of precedent were thrown over and at least two Standing Orders ignored. But all that was apparently of no concern to these lords of law, these unelected judges accountable to no one but themselves. (There is no appeal).
The Judges’ justification for saying that Prorogation was unlawful i.e.
“if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive”
certainly cannot pertain in this case as the above fact of unprecedented parliamentary control demonstrates. Not only was Government “supervised” it was removed from its traditional control of parliamentary business so that an alternative unelected “Government” could take control. So there is no justification whatsoever for the words in the judgment:
The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme
I note the Freudian slip of describing the people’s democracy as “ours” – the judges’! It was not even “extreme” in the effects on the “politocracy” – the politics of power – and certainly not on the rights of the people, 54% of whom supported prorogation. The Judges stated in their Judgement:
This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October
It was not at all “exceptional” as shown by repeated examples over the last 46 years when EU Treaties were signed by Ministers using Crown prerogative powers to REMOVE ALL parliamentary control in whole areas of social, commercial, fiscal, judicial (!) and political life. The Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties which sacrificed national self governance were all “exceptional”. If they were not then this ongoing process of restoring national self government is certainly NOT “exceptional”.
Nor was there any shortage of time for Parliament to intervene between 3rd September and the 12th September. Given the bludgeoning anti democratic procedures used by Remainers between the 3rd and 9th September there is time at the end of October to repeal the entire British constitution!
ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES DON’T RECOGNISE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
The judges further state, with obnoxious hypocrisy, that they are defending:
……….Parliamentary sovereignty – that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey –
But this parliament can do no such thing and has not been able to do so for 46 years. Strange that whenever a case seeks to re-affirm the sovereignty of the British people it fails (the 1972 Ross McWhirter case, the Rees Mogg case, the 1993 Treason charges, the Tilbrook case etc etc) while the cases which have the opposite effect succeed. That is rightly seen as that ultimate expression of fascism – arbitrary law. The stench of Judges’ abject hypocrisy again:
Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about.
When we entered the EU/EEC in 1973 the people were not asked “how that change comes about”. Had they been they would have said – OK but no loss of our democratic sovereignty!
The people spoke in June 2016. The two major parties stood on manifestoes in 2017 (garnering over 80% of the votes) committing to leave the European Union. The House of Commons passed the Withdrawal (no qualifications!) Act by an overwhelming vote of 4 to 1 so there is no question that the true sovereigns and indeed their MPs have spoken and legislated clearly. So the Johnson Government has every moral, legal, parliamentary and constitutional right to implement that decision – no ifs no buts.
Finally the Judges say that “Government is accountable to parliament” – true but Government proposes and Parliament can vote those proposals down. It is no more legitimate for Parliament to take over and act as a Government (as it has done) than it is for Judges to intervene in the procedures of Parliament (eg Standing orders) and prerogative powers.
THE LENGTH OF THE PROROGATION – WHAT ABOUT THE EXTENSION?
It is another gross hypocrisy and arbitrary law to assert that it is the length of the prorogation which prevents proper parliamentary scrutiny while ignoring the repeated extension of Brexit itself. For while the former has no great effect (given the parliamentary coup purporting to prevent no deal Brexit) in the latter case there is no doubt that repeated extensions are massively damaging economically and democratically and effectively REVERSE the will of the people (and the terms of EU Law!) by indefinite application of “extension”.
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF LEGAL INTERVENTIONS IS POLITICAL
Even if this judgment stood up to scrutiny the effect of repeated legal interventions in democratic decisions is undeniably political. Political law is bad law and even at the best of times is seen rightly as a denial of democratic accountability. It is doubly so today when a referendum, general election manifestos and clear legislation are all frustrated by a political class which simultaneously prevents a general election to resolve the crisis on the basis of the will of the people. Not the will of Judges.
* JUSTICES: Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
