Why the judges cannot overturn the referendum

DforDoom asked:

Would [May] need to persuade the Queen to act to dissolve Parliament? Does the Queen still have the power to do so?

This is interesting but hardly conclusive:


This certainly gives fuller legal opinion:


As a non-lawyer, for once this is put forward as opinion, based on my reading of what lawyers, constitutional and otherwise, have said. And what they have said conflicts, roughly along political lines – so it essentially comes down to who is in charge in the country at the time.

At the moment, it is the globalists v the parliamentarians – as they see it – and the ones left right out of it are “the people”. They’re not interested in “the people”, it’s not a legal question of the great unwashed, according to the lawyers for the government.

I wrote, at Tom Paine’s place [Tom is a lawyer by birth :), one of the good ones ]:

Parliament is not sovereign, the people are. They serve the people, at our sufferance. The judiciary is neither the legislature nor the executive.

Had there been no direct order, i.e. the referendum result, then parliament’s will would have prevailed in lieu. But the people did formally speak, as at a GE and so parliament and all other bodies must fall in with that.

Of course many will argue not and have the legal cases and acts to quote, to which I quote others. Part of the issue was we got cross purposes over this sort of thing, pre-referendum:

Blogger A says we do not have the power under EU law to determine our own will and go our own way. Blogger B says yes we bloody well do, under … and he quotes the acts.

The problem is both are right. The EU could say our treasonous leadership did sign away our sovereignty, loyal lawyers [not an oxymoron] say they had no right to. That’s where we are and as many have pointed out – no written constitution, as in the US and Oz. Worse than that, conflicting opinion, each cogent.

Who owns Britain?

The Crown” is actually a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

Aubrey Menen wrote, in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State.

During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

This area we’re talking about here is known as the Crown Temple and has been known by that name or a variation of it for centuries.

Thus the Four Inns of Court to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London – a sovereign and independent territory which is at once part of and not part of the United Kingdom, preceding the UK by some considerable time.

The Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. The Queen [and formerly the Queen Mother] are/were members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).

None of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated – you can’t make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, their constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation.

While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license affecting Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to affect America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.

Though they deal in legalities, those legalities include legislation of the UK Parliament. Therefore Truss was bound to support them. Therefore, my statement that the people are sovereign can be shown to be wrong. In legal terms. But in natural and common law, we know they are sovereign, the people.

To which the answer is – not in this country. And that comes down to the evil muvvers who have run this scam for centuries.

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget.

Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City.

As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”Woe betide him if he does not listen.”

The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party.

When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

This is why Gordon Brown’s postulating about reining in The City was met with arched eyebrows inside The City.

So who has sovereignty in this country? Well, it depends what you mean by that word. If you mean nominally, then the Queen reigns over us. If you mean in terms of day to day laws, then the Prime Minister decides our fates. If you mean the country’s ability to do anything, for its elected parliament to initiate action, then The City and the Crown Temple rule.

Not even the Monarch can come in and appropriate these, according to the Temple Crown’s own rules.

Patrick O’Connor QC wrote a paper on the Privy Council, its powers and its role. The paper was launched at a meeting at Doughty Street Chambers on 26 January 2009. Click here to download a copy of the paper. Click here for a summary of the paper’s 11 conclusions. One conclusion was:

That the Privy Council does actually have formal powers is undoubted:

privyfiction 2

Where does that leave us?

Confused. It leaves us with a double hijacking. First the EU hijacked us through the collusion of our pollies.

However they too had conned us into believing, previously, that Parliament was supreme – we’re taught this from birth. No one teaches you the people are supreme … and yet what are elections each five years about then?

Parliament says the GE is only to determine who is in the sovereign body, not for people to exercise any sovereignty and this is most often stated by Labour pollies – the Tories are far more sly on the matter.

And all our efforts to declare parliament sovereign have been in relation to and in the context of the EU battle.

So yes, if you accept the terms of reference the High Court claims it can make and Parliament also, then you must accept this decision by the three traitors to the people. But if you assert the fundamental final right of the people – parliament has the sole power to make the laws but the people can overturn them -then that is a different ball game.

And of course, almost everyone is forgetting the Crown, not the sovereign herself.

8 comments for “Why the judges cannot overturn the referendum

  1. Errol
    November 6, 2016 at 6:44 am

    Part of the problem from the outset is this mistaken belief that the UK is a democracy. It isn’t, and never has been. From the Kent marches that sparked the civil war to the present day parliament has acted always in it’s own interests.

    Ministers do not have to consult constituents. They do not obey constituent commands on how to vote. Referenda are ignored. We resort to polite marches, to protesting, to debate and discussion when they do what they want to but they still do whatever they want to do.

    Look at Brown’s egregious spending spree. At Mandelson’s blatant corruption, at the war in Iraq. All things the people opposed but were impotent in doing anything about. Why was Cameron able to call the referendum? Why could *we* not do so?

    The farce of ‘representative democracy’ is a veneer over the truth: it’s a dictatorship punctuated by a changing of sides every so often – sides, never ideologies. The state always wins precisely because we do not control it.

    • November 6, 2016 at 8:41 am

      Or to refine that, seditiously, they held the whip hand until the internet age. Knowledge is power and the only thing stopping us is the “woe is us” defeatism, rather than seizing the bull by the tail.

      And this is where the Americans have it over us – they don’t “put up with”. They act to restore. A written Constitution helps focus the mind too.

      • Mudplugger
        November 6, 2016 at 9:37 am

        The Americans don’t need to ‘put up with’ anything – they retain the right to bear arms, a right taken from us under the guise of protecting us from ourselves but, in truth, it enables government to act without fear of any armed civilian uprising.
        As the post ‘Oliver’s Army’ fails to recognise, any such army today would lack the necessary firepower to concentrate a rogue government’s mind beyond what little could be achieved with impotent banners and slogans.

      • rapscallion
        November 6, 2016 at 9:50 am

        James, enough of this unwritten constitution stuff. I grant you its not all in one document, but that doesn’t make it any less of a constitution, It IS however written down. Magna Carta is one, Act of Settlement 1701 is another, and the crowning glory is the Bill of Rights 1689, an act on which the US constitution is largely built.

  2. Henry Kaye
    November 6, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    And so it goes on; time and again voices are raised condemning not only our system of government but, in particular, our self serving “elected” representatives. Time and time again it is clear that the voice of the people is meaningless and as James has so often reminded us: the PTB are a law unto themselves and we are too weak to do anything about it.

  3. Tom
    November 6, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    As I replied to you back at my site, that’s good rhetoric and perhaps even good philosophy, James, but bad law. The English courts have no way of knowing what the people want other than as it is expressed by Parliament. They will quite rightly listen to no other voice. As we have been throughout our history, except during the dark years when the Crown asserted a far greater prerogative than it did this week, we are at the mercy of Parliament.

    Through elections and constituency pressure (I exchanged emails yesterday with my own MP and you should write to yours) I still believe that MPs, including Tory Remainians, will do the right thing. In fact I am enjoying the likes of Polly Toynbee and my own MP Rupa Huq, urging them to defy us. All over the country, the people are learning from their sneering the truly wicked nature of the enemy within.

    The more they assert the dominion of their “superior” and “more enlightened” will over that of the people, the more their hateful power will wither.

  4. November 6, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Mudplugger, Rapscallion, Henry and Tom – thanks for those, have just got back and read.

    Hmmmm, will be interesting to see how it pans out.

  5. Hereward Unbowed.
    November 6, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    I rather admire Gina Miller, I don’t hang with the ad hom flack, the in coming she’s receiving – and really she’s just a symptom of a far greater, far more deadly pathogen. Though I loathe her political grandstanding and worry deeply about her wider circle of friends, I deem that, she should tread very carefully in future, with friends like hers, who needs enemies?

    In Britain the political plates are imperceptibly shifting but as with geological time, nothing seems to change. Tom Paine writes, is elegantly restrained in his rhetoric, as would be expected but middle for diddle is he.
    Errol, is perfectly correct, ‘we the people; are to all intents utterly powerless, are no further forwards than back, in the days of Tyler and later, Mr. George Loveless and TPTB fully intend never to relinquish their reins.

    Yet political transmogrification is demanded, change beckons, change because of absolute mothering necessity, change will happen and is, albeit at a pace tectonic – massive upheaval but so creeping nano micrometers slowly.

    It will be, though, will we be to see it?

Comments are closed.