The Supreme’s Latest Hit

So the Supreme Court has ‘dissed’ 17.4 million British voters, and stated that Parliament should vote on the paths, manner and wherefore’s of Brexit, instead of the Government.

I would direct OoL readers to the YouTube site, and there to click on and to watch a very interesting video named Brexit and the Battle for Democracy. 

Its 20 minutes long, but well worth the effort.

It really does concentrate the message about what has actually been done to the British people, in the name of the sacred cause of what passes for Democracy in this dis-United Kingdom, and it really exposes the thinking behind the Supreme court’s decision!

13 comments for “The Supreme’s Latest Hit

  1. January 24, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Mike saved me a job. There is what he wrote, and then there is this:

    1. The people voted and what’s more, the govt document sent to every home said it would implement whatever the decision was. That is a binding document for govt policy.

    2. The Supreme Court cannot make an illegal decision, which this is. The govt., by virtue of its Commons majority, has the right to govern as it sees fit, on pain of no confidence motions – it does not need the SC and has not in recent times.

    3. The govt’s chief minister can make an unpopular decision for the party, e.g. poll tax but then it’s up to the PP to vote agin the govt, in which case, the govt. falls. But if the people put the govt back, then that is a 2nd mandate.

    4. I believe this is what May wants.

    5. There is no need for Article 50. May need only cut off funding for the EU, in a similar way to the Donald, and that’s end game. Trump is waiting to make his deal with her.

    6. The ONLY reason for this whole theatre is for May to jockey for position. There is no need in terms of implementing Brexit.

    So be of good cheer, everyone – Brexit IS happening.

  2. James Strong
    January 24, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    I think you have mis-understood the Supreme Court’s ruling and that your opening sentence is factually incorrect.
    The Supreme Court has not said that Parliament should vote on the ‘paths, manner and wherefore ‘s of Brexit’.

    All those things are points that will come up in the negotiations. This ruling is about the triggering of Article 50, not the negotiations after them.

    Further, the idea that Parliament, or the electorate in a referendum, should vote on the terms after negotiation is a fantasy.
    After Article 50 is triggered and the negotiation is completed if the UK doesn’t like the terms then Brexit occurs anyway. The UK can’t withdraw Article 50 without agreement of all 27 EU members. If you would like to bet that all 27 members would agree to that then I will happily take that bet.

    Further, you have made a wildly overstated claim that the Supreme Court has dissed 17.4 million people. What the Court has said is that, under the UK constitution as it stands, a law enacted by Parliament needs an Act of Parliament to be struck down, i.e. it can’t be struck down by referendum.(That’s not absolutely true right now because a law enacted by the UK Parliament can be struck down if it runs contrary to EU law, but for the purpose of this debate my statement is valid.)

    In your piece here you have allowed emotion and polemic to overrule fact.

    • January 24, 2017 at 2:51 pm

      No, in my piece, I have put the facts as they stand, missing none of them. You clearly misunderstand the position but David Davis does understand it and has said they will trigger it anyway. Quite rightly – the SC has no jurisdiction in this matter in this country.

      You’ve made a few errors in there but let’s press on.

      The govt, meaning the majority party, makes the decisions. Now, if that decision is not liked within the PP, they can push for no-confidence of course and then there is either a new leader or the PM calls for a dissolution.

      Everyone knows that if that happened, the Remoaners would lose their preselections in the main and the govt. would be returned, with the 2nd mandate.

      As it stands now, as said, Davis is quite right – they can ignore the SC ‘opinion’ if they wish. However, it might be politically expedient to play it out and curry favour with the public – that’s for them to decide how they play it but the bottom line is that the SC has no jurisdiction on the matter, only on the laws of the land.

      FT reports just now that, as mentioned above, it goes ahead as per plan. That’s all I was saying – the SC decision is irrelevant, though appointees on that bench will be slowly replaced.

  3. January 24, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    There seems to me to be three candidates (or perhaps four) for being the supreme political authority in the UK:

    1. The People, as in the electorate of British Citizens who vote for the House of Commons

    2. Parliament, that views itself as supreme – except when there is a spat between the Lords and the Commons, when the Commons state they are “pre-eminent” – so perhaps the HoC makes a fourth candidate;

    3. That thingy which alone of the three/four has supreme in its name: namely the Blairist creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

    Which one, when it comes down to it, do each of you think is supreme?

    Best regards

  4. mona
    January 24, 2017 at 8:47 pm

    The pretend to be, supreme court is a” legal fiction”, easily proved let Teresa May ignore it, what can they do? sweet FA, the people have already instructed Parliament at the general election , what have the wiggies got to do with it?

    • January 29, 2017 at 7:25 am

      Maybe some of Trump’s attitude might have rubbed off?

  5. Hereward Unbowed.
    January 24, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    A question first, why is it, that an unelected PM someone who was installed even without the say so of his political party was allowed to slip in, behind closed doors almost unnoticed to sign the EU constitreaty of Lisbon – no one asked us and someone explain it – how is the Lisbon treaty in any way ‘LEGAL’?

    In everything the Brussels Mafia does, a legal challenge would undo all of it, non, nada, nothing of it is democratic.

    The EU offends the very idea democracy, it is unaccountable, irrespective of people’s wishes – they broke their own rools to jemmy the Greeks into the €zero. Brussels, it ordains on everything from bent vehicle emissions, to selling horse meat as beef, to attempting to coerce the Ukraine into the EU via the backdoor and in the face of all logic and defiant of Russian sensibilities, it would not be hyperbole to imply that, the illegal Brussels Empire creep threatens the security of the whole of EUrope……

    Legal? they – the Brussels mafia daily wipe their arses on ‘legal’.


    Let’s get this the right way round.

    but first, we need to remind ourselves of what it is the supreme court actually are……..:

    There was a dopey bird on the wireless yesterday, claiming to represent Britain’s 15,500 barristers, accusing the Daily Mail of behaving like Hitler for daring to question the impartiality of judges. Oh, for heaven’s sake, grow up, pet. Your puerile hyperbole only serves to prove our point.

    And who knew that we had 15,500 barristers in Britain, on top of the assorted solicitors, paralegals and PPI parasites? What do they all do, apart from make a bloody nuisance of themselves?

    Look, for the record, I acknowledge that we need the rule of law. But I have the utmost contempt for most of its practitioners, who think they are the law, rather than its mere custodians. In the immortal words of Tony Hancock: ‘Magna Carta — did she die in vain?’

    Maybe it was always thus. Peter Cook was making a good living poking fun at judges in the Sixties. But the rot really set in after the Labour landslide in 1997. Don’t forget that Blair claimed the incorporation of the corrupt European ‘yuman rites’ act into British law was his proudest achievement in politics.

    Of course it was. His missus and her mates made a killing, hoovering up millions in legal aid for representing terrorists, rapists, murderers, illegal immigrants, child molesters and assorted chancers.

    And these days the Wicked Witch is a judge, too, when she’s not buying another house or lecturing us loftily on ‘parenting’.

    Here’s a top tip, Cherie baby. We’re not interested in what you think about anything, sweetheart.

    But the whole point of the Blair Project was to install judicial activism above popular democracy.

    The intention was always to lock us in so tightly to the EU that the judges would be able to scupper any vote to leave. This week’s ‘Supreme Court’ spectacular was in the script. And that’s precisely where we’ve arrived.

    Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about whatever decision the so-called ‘Supreme Court’ hands down eventually, even if it goes the way I’d prefer. The simple fact is: they shouldn’t be involved in the process at all.
    When Britain voted Leave, we were rejecting the whole rotten edifice — up to and including the self-regarding, self-important, self-perpetuating judicial class

    This whole attempt to sabotage the democratic will of the British people should never have been allowed to get this far.

    But, as always, everybody has to be in the movie — and this time it’s the judges’ turn to take centre stage. They’re like those gormless prats who stand behind TV reporters on location, waving and pulling faces at the camera.

    Hello, Mum!

    Only in the case of judges, it’s not just about being on telly, it’s about showing us plebs who’s boss.

    What they don’t begin to understand is that, to employ a cliche, they’re part of the problem, not the solution.

    When Britain voted Leave, we were rejecting the whole rotten edifice — up to and including the self-regarding, self-important, self-perpetuating judicial class, who despite their aloof blather about their ‘independence’ are ultimately subordinate to Europe.

    link Daily Mail here

    So true, so right, so Foxtrot Oscar – yer fekkers.

    What you need to know:

    The people are supreme.

    Parliament acts on behalf of but absolutely at the behest of the people and that’s where we went wrong. That is, until June 23rd, when at long last we got a say and told them to go forth and multiply in a roar, OUT! OUT! OUT!

    The then sitting PM and with his executive, after drafting an act – which was passed by the legislature, to ask the people on a decision of supreme import, the people duly voted in a free and fair ‘in or out’ plebiscite and instructed the government forthwith to remove Britain out of the EU, at no point were the opinions of a bunch of arrogant, arrant, berobed knobs solicited.

    Got that?

    If the legislature as seems now very likely, attempts to filibuster……………………

    Then that’s, the sort of stuff which foments revolutions.

    The UK stands on the brink, at a very potentially explosive period in British history.

    What do we see again! That, a clique of wealthytards some living well beyond these shores, and rich beyond the dreams of Croesus, are evidently in cahoots with the UK legal Mafia and at the first effort: have stymied the proles wishes!

    Thus and while the goblin remoaniacs make their malevolent mischief in Westminster, ever does the fulminating British public get ready to, rock and roll and it doesn’t have to be done like the French, a simple but determined programme of non cooperation, will force the establishment to rethink just who it is whose actually the boss

    We shall see, we did mark, and we will remember.

  6. mona
    January 25, 2017 at 10:37 am

    There will be panic stations if the leader of UKIP is elected shortly as a M P, just wait and see.

    • mona
      January 25, 2017 at 10:46 am

      Sorry forgot to mention Shakespeare had it right about lawers

      • Hereward Unbowed.
        January 25, 2017 at 1:41 pm

        One never argues with the Bard and that, he never dispenses a throwaway aside.

      • mikebravo
        January 26, 2017 at 2:22 pm

        “Sorry forgot to mention Shakespeare had it right about lawers”

        This one?

        “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”

        (2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade

        • mona
          January 28, 2017 at 4:01 pm

          Thank you my learned friend.

  7. Gregory Tingey
    January 29, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    The Supreme Court has merely stated that Parliament gets a say & that we are not governed by the PM’s prerogative.

    In case you had forgotten, we had three civil wars over the exercise of absolute authority here, some 375 (ish) years ago …..

Comments are closed.