All eleven judges (or is that twelve?) are involved – a rare event, which shows the importance of the proceedings. As I understand it, the judges listen to the evidence and then each one of them, separately, gives his opinion and comes down on one side or the other. How much ‘collusion’ occurs is anyone’s guess, although, in principle, there should be no collusion at all.
Perhaps it is important that these constitutional matters should be thrashed out. It would not surprise me if the reference to to the Courts was not always intended, after the Brexit vote. Maybe that is one of the reasons that Cameron got out of the way. He promised to abide by the result. But did he have any right to make that promise? And yet that promise was central to the referendum importance. How many people would have bothered to turn out had Cameron said, “It’s a good idea to have a referendum, but I do not give a toss what the result is. We will stay in the EU”. So he had no option but to get out of the way so that the Elite could do as they wish.
So, to what extent do readers think that the Supreme Court is biased either way?
I think that the judges are honest. I think that they will honestly evaluate ‘The Law’ of the UK. I think that a big stumbling block is that Governments over the past twenty years or so have rode roughshod over our constitution. The Americans did not. They did not ratify the FCTC. Why not? Because, in the USA, the Constitution demands that ONLY the people of the USA can EVEN DISCUSS what laws should be made in the USA. The idea that an organisation such as the UN could discuss and formulate USA laws is outrageous.
Why does the UK Constitution not do likewise? Who gave the UN charlatans power to discuss what laws should hold in Great Britain? That humiliation was borne out adequately when Milton MP said in the HoC that we signed the FCTC treaty and must therefore do what it says. Further, Soubry MP signed the UK up to the latest Tobacco Products Directive without knowing what was in it. I mean, why did those ladies get into their positions of Health Minister and have to be quietly removed after their ignorance was revealed, and why were such ignorant people appointed in the first place?
The same applies NOW!!! There must be hundreds of lawyers who claim to be ‘experts’ on EU law, of which Cherie Blair is one – ‘Uman rites’. Which of them gets to be ‘Supreme Advisor’ to the Health Minister? For it always seems to be one person, backed up by a committee of his choosing, who gets the advisory role. SHS was one such matter, as was smoking in pregnancy.
I do not blame any of the individuals involved – not really. You cannot really blame a committee composed of Eugenicists for promoting eugenics if they believe that race signifies intelligence. That is, that a person with black skin who originated from a part of Africa which was simplistic and tribal, is not likely to have the intellectual capacity to learn atomic physics. I hate that idea, but I understand it. The only justification is that a particular person with black skin might struggle to separate ‘thought’ from ‘action’.
Be that as it may. But there is also the problem of a ‘tribe’, Islamists, who simply cannot see that there is any social structure which can be unfettered. They are blinded by the need to protect their females. Thus, a few of them, lusty young men, can see unprotected females as fair game. We would only know what is going on in the minds of those young men if we asked them.
How many times have we seen this situation before, even in this country? “Why did you rape that girl?” “I did not rape her. She was asking for it” “What do you mean by ‘asking for it?” “She was obviously randy because of her make-up, short skirt, ‘come-and-get-me attitude’, and eye-contact. She obviously wanted to have sex with me. She did not really, really resist”.
Crazy though it might seems, I have some sympathy with that crude statement. My personal knowledge is limited because, in my youth, I was not especially ‘handsome’, and probably not a man that a girl would want to ‘grope’. We forget sometimes that not only men like to ‘grope’, and it is not unlikely that girls would like to ‘grope’ the most handsome men.
What has that got to do with the Supreme Court? It is that what appears on the surface is not always reality, and vice versa. It would be a terrible shame, and extremely damaging if the Supreme Court arrived at the ‘wrong’ decision! Ha! Ha!
Damn it! There is only one single issue: “Did the People vote to ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’?” If they voted to ‘Leave’, then that is the imperative. ‘Advisory’ does not come into it. The People did not vote to ‘advise’ Parliament. They ‘instructed’ Parliament. THERE IS NO DOUBT.
What follows is that any MP who disagrees with the plebiscite must either resign or abstain. May should bring to the HoC a simple vote right away. “Does this House accept the result of the Referendum?” Problem solved.
So why has such a motion not already been brought immediately after the referendum? Why was such a resolution not brought to Parliament within days of the referendum? My view is that not one single politician had thought about the consequences of a ‘Leave’ vote, and so Cameron resigned because of the disintegration of his Cabinet. He actually had no option because he ceased to have authority, despite his promised to implement the decision of The People.
But what I find most distressing is the cowardice. Cameron ran away from his promises. Despite his advocacy of the EU, he should have done what he promised – overseen the break between Great Britain and the EU. Failure cannot be more abject.
What will the Supreme Court decide?
It is fun to speculate. It could decide that there is no ‘legal’ issue; that we are in new territory, and that there is no precedent. It is hard to believe that the Judges could say that The People have NOT voted to exit the EU, or that Parliament could disregard that vote. It cannot be done. It is concrete. What should happen is that all the MPs who were ‘remainers’ in constituencies which voted ‘Leave’ should resign.
But why should we expect MPs to have principles? We should not since they are as ignorant as the rest of us.
But perhaps we can expect judges to interpret our Constitution correctly. Parliament is not Supreme since charlatans could take over Parliament for a little while. The People are SUPREME. Parliament is only supreme if it has the backing of The People. If Parliament ignores the will of The People, then civil war ensues. Such a war need not be armed conflict, but it would be the present MPs against The People.
The People have decided to exit the EU. The decision took effect as soon as the votes were counted. Article 50 is irrelevant other than as a possible process. But Article 50 has no FORCE. In fact, it is irrelevant and meaningless.
I cannot understand why there is a problem. The UK has exited and so our diplomatic endeavour should be with individual nations which comprise the EU. If such a nation rejects our overtures, then “God Bless them”.
The United States of Europe could have happened, and might still happen, but not on the basis of the secret plans of a few dreamers. I am surprised that a few dreamers could have imposed the Euro as though Europe was the same as America 150 years ago. In the USA, the common currency was introduced via civil war.
What we are seeing in the EU at present is the opposite. The Euro has been introduced BEFORE the civil war.
What I find as sad is that the Euro could have been introduced as a ‘common currency’ in the EU with an exchange rate.Thus, any person travelling from, say, France to Germany and then to Roumania, and then to Greece, and so on, could use Euros to purchase stuff at a given local exchange rate. That idea is not rare. There are places in Magalluf, Mallorca, which accept pound notes as much as Euros. Why? Because the ‘medium of exchange’ is insignificant.
Few of us have any idea at all about what money IS. At its basic level, it is ‘tokens’. which move around and pass from one person to another. But what happens when there are not enough tokens, or when one person hoards tokens? Then more tokens have to be created. Obviously, that is a simplification, but it is basically correct.
So the Supreme Court of the UK will decide whether or not the expressed will of the People in the referendum was just a bit of fun.
Good luck with that idea Judge Rinder.