Whilst the secret funding behind Gina Miller's attempts to subvert the will of the British people is still mired in mists of secrecy, four more stooges and plants have popped up to use someone's secret funds to try to derail Brexit by law. Only these stooges don't fancy the publicity - so have asked if they can bring their secret funded case under conditions of, er, secrecy.
I strongly suspect that Soros is behind all this. Soros wants British national identity to be destroyed and replaced by a homogeneous consumer lumpen mass with no competing allegiances who will surrender to the serfdom of the global corporates. He has funded street violence, nihilistic 'actions' and the no-borders idiots and, in a campaign of social attrition, every day provokes small acts of disorder and fear. He is a thoroughly evil old man and the enemy of the United Kingdom.
Well, we have no great history of secret justice in England, and no reason why the latest stooges should sneak around like thieves in the night hidden from daylight and public view. If they believe in their cause, rather than in the pieces of silver with which their backer has stuffed their mouths, let them come forward.
And I don't know whether they seek an equitable remedy, but I once learnt that he 'who comes to equity must come with clean hands' - and it's a good principle also for those who seek to challenge the will of the majority of the British people. Let's see 'em. Let the papers get digging and chase the money. We need to uncover the seditious dogs behind them.
19 comments:
The papers might find someone with enough clout to dig it out, but expect nothing from those brave investigative 'reporters' in the BBC, because they all wanted Billary to win, and the UK to remain in the odorous EU.
The "vested interest" lobby still hard at the devil's work I see. I don't know about Soros but if he is behind this, then I'm sure that a brief conversation with the new President Trump on Friday would see his ambitions quashed.
The Gina Miller case may well have been motivated for nefarious reasons but in principle it is right that the precise legal arguments are aired now rather than later.
Whether I have so much faith in our judges is a bit less cut and dried, but they are our judges and that was partly what the vote was about.
In any case it is highly probable that the the thing will rebound on them anyway as having established once and for all that parliament is sovereign it should be posible to bring some kind of countervailing suit, god knows I'm not a lawyer and it probably shows.
Anyway so what if there is another parliamentary vote? it goes the wrong way and there is a massive massive political crisis. The genie is out of the bottle and they won't get it back in.
But I agree Soros is a creepy obnoxious and dangerous bastard and it is time he was dealt with (by strictly legal means of course!!).
Slightly o/t; I'm still trying to untangle in my own mind the ramifications of May's effort yesterday. It has left me pessimistic.
Cuffleyburgers, you do speak much sense but on this, we'd have to have a debate: "but they are our judges" "our"? Not bloomin' likely
And on this.............
Slightly o/t; I'm still trying to untangle in my own mind the ramifications of May's effort yesterday. It has left me pessimistic./unquote.
The Daily fail, shouting for all their worth [granted and that's not much value] but am I not seeing it? Or, do I think Theresa May is full of it............. and as are the Tories - always fighting the Brussels corner, there is, at the bottom of all this Ken Clarke's grubby little hand and isn't that the way of Ken and mandy - his claque of EU bottom feelers?
Those trying to undermine the only real democratic vote this country has had since the first referendum in 1975 obviously don't understand that if they manage to block Brexit, they will be sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind at the next General Election.
I can't think of anything more likely to result in a Parliament of Conservative Brexiteers and UKIP MPs.
Concur DeeDee99.
Labour and the Dim Libs would be wiped out (except in certain lefty enclaves like Islington).
If they want to promote a constitutional crisis they're going the right way about it, but they are playing with fire. I know us British are slow to anger, but this saga is beginning to make my blood boil. We expressed our wish last June in the usual dignified British way. Overturn that and our response will not be quite so dignified.
No history of secret justice ?
I think the Family Courts tell a different story.
Anonymous litigants?
Is there some sort of sex crime afoot?
This is a mis-step by the judge - albeit one that he has the hubris and perhaps the Masonic mindset to believe he can get away with.
Anonymous people trying to use the law to challenge a democratic vote? - WTF is going on here?
Dadad - I would agree with you there that Family Courts are travisty. they should not be, and their repulsiveness is made more apparent by the hiosrorical precident that Raedwald mentions.
That Soros is a sociopath is beyond argument, his influence through his Open Society Foundation has caused real injury, and death. A police officer was killed at a Trump rally last year, the perps funded by a group associated with Soros. Easily the biggest shit-stirrer the world has ever seen. He's a globalist, one of approximatey 200 who secretly steer half the world around - and have one eye the rest of it. Globalists therefore don't like Putin. You can guess why but the simple reason is he won't knuckle under.
The EU is a globalist project. It can't be allowed to fail and people will continue to suffer. From a young girl walking through a park, who gets raped and murdered by a globalist change agent, to a whole country, mired in debt because it can't run an economy that suits its people. The globalist is the modern equivalent of a flat-earther, e.g. changing weather becomes climate change. Common sense left the room many decades ago and I can't see it returning any time soon. Sad.
Steve
From Rudyard Kipling:
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
Just saying
" Globalists therefore don't like Putin. You can guess why but the simple reason is he won't knuckle under.
"
In one Steve, in one. Vladimir doesn't get it, still thank God he doesn't, because Russia is the bulwark of the west, until Britain understands it again for she did do once upon a time, we will be easy meat set on the table, the menu, for the globalist raptors.
Bring on Mr. Donald Trump, I pray that he leads a charmed life can bring his business brain to alleviate the problems of the mid west and its "rust belt" for sure the boys mining in PA and KY, WV, VA will be at work again! Pray that, Mr Trump is kept safe and that he finds a way to dicker with the Russians and to set the PRC down at heel.
Though where we are going, still is, a great worry to me. I don't trust the tories nor, may particularly.
One observation - we only have a "supreme court" because of the bloody EU.
@Selsey Steve
I like that poem and it sums up the potential for what could happen. It is just possible that the kingdom of the unelected globalists is under threat and that when millions of people are shown (by the emerging new world order) what has been done to them in the name of the anti-liberal elite, there could be mortal trouble ahead - for them!
The constitutional basis of the court case won by "Gina Miller" is that the government (ie the executive) cannot use its prerogative powers to remove "rights" enacted by Parliament.
That principle is absolutely fundamental to our freedom under the law. I support it completely. However ...
The High Court was persuaded by the claimant's lawyers that the principle defined above was applicable.
The EU "rights" (ie rights and obligations) that would be removed by leaving the EU are principally the Regulations (because the Directives have already been implemented as UK statute, and would not be removed by reason of our exit). But the Regulations (that "reside" in Brussels) have by definition never been passed as law by the UK Parliament. The Regulations have only been enabled by the ECA 1972.
Therefore the condition of the constitutional principle is not fulfilled. See Professor John Finnis "Terminating Treaty Based Rights" 26 Oct 2016. The government's failure to correctly argue the case seems at least partly due to the incompetence (connivance?) of the government's lawyers.
The ECA can only be repealed by Parliament, and that appears on its own to fulfill the requirement stipulated by the judges that Parliament, not the executive, must decide.
I have long argued here, and elsewhere that we should not invoke TEU Article 50; and also that we should "patriate" the Regulations as part of the leave process. Theresa May included in her speech (17th Jan) the line that EU laws would be "converted" directly into UK law in order to provide immediate regulatory continuity. I am thankful that the government agrees with me! The fact that all applicable EU laws will be patriated means that (initially at least) no "rights" will be "lost" thereby again complying with the High Court ruling.
In my view Article 50 is a trap because it makes the UK (in this case) a supplicant, allowing the EU to control the process. Now Remainers are also making use of Art50 to complicate Brexit.
As a sovereign nation the UK is entitled under international law to abrogate a treaty (see Vienna Article 54, for example) therefore it is possible to by-pass Art50. We should give the EU 12 months notice of our leave date, which is ample time to negotiate a trade deal not least because it can be based on the existing trading arrangements. Repeal of the ECA during the notice period is key to the leave process, removing EU legal supremacy.
Soros does appear to be a bandit...
Banditry has long been a route to political power - Iosif Dugashvili,and Mao Zedong were both quite successful bandits.
I wonder, given his financial resources if Mr. Soros aspires to some kind of greatness. He's very circumspect about exposing his motivation for those political antics which we actually know he's perpetrated....
Budgie a thoughtful posting, and one I mostly agree with.
However I do not share your optimism that negotiating a trade deal in one year is remotely possible, and I think that the art. 50 route is the correct way to go.
To me it is vital that economic disruption is kept to a minimum and this means not only genuine economic disruption caused by real problems but also fake economic problems caused by fake news, panic, ignorance and collective hysteria in the press.
Therefore, as we don't know how long it will take to negotiate a full and satisfactory trade deal which would smoth the way to smooth running over the transition period, which experience shows could easily be a decade; in my view it would make absolute sense to rejoin EFTA and remain part of the single market until such time as the definitive situation is reached.
This would be a highly desirable arrangement; out of the embrace of the worst of the EU, but still benefitting from its single worthwhile achievement much as the other richest nations in Europe, Norway and Switzerland. The immigration/free movement issue is misrepresented very ofter as if this would be an obstacle but in truth it isn't, and the "fax diplomacy" meme deployed by resperate remainiacs is also bollocks on stilts.
I don't think May explicitly excluded this option but she certainly didn't mention it; and I think it will become inevitable when the full ramifications of any other approach become clear.
Cuffleyburgers, as you know Article 50 initiates the leaving process, and is a quite separate issue to a trade deal between the UK and the EU. Bear in mind that our exports to the EU amount to only about 10% of UK GDP, so for continuity the other 90% is of greater concern.
We can initiate the leave process either by invoking Art50, or by giving notice. The first clearly gives more power to the EU than the second. Why become an Art50 supplicant? It does not make sense.
Then the "trade deal": we already have two agreed trade deals. One is the existing tariff free access to each others markets. It should not take more than a week to accept this continuation.
If the EU refuses the existing trade terms, it refuses anyway, and no amount of pleading (sorry, "negotiation") on our part will change that. So we end up with the second agreed deal - WTO tariffs. So two weeks at most for a trade deal?
Yes there may be some disruption but that is inevitable given the changes in our governance, not just because of changes in trade. A transitional arrangement is itself disruptive, and carries the political risk that we would never properly leave the EU.
Secret courts might also include Blair giving a secret pardon to IRA murderers, and David Furnish's novel use of olive oil and paddling pools
Post a Comment