British Indy: What Happens Now?

He did, I suspect he has ground himself to a standstill in UK politics and is looking further afield.

 

Everything I'd like to say,but written by someone smarter than..er..me?...I?...whatever..:

It was the establishment on trial, and the verdict is guilty
The British public is now as alienated from the judiciary as from the legislature
BY GERALD WARNER / 9 DECEMBER 2016


It was the courts and Parliament that were on trial this week, at the bar of public opinion, not some recondite issues relating to that fabled beast, the British Constitution. The watching public has returned a guilty verdict.

What, in essence, happened? A rich woman used her private wealth to mobilize three High Court judges to intrude themselves upon an international treaty negotiation being conducted by Her Majesty’s Government under the customary Royal Prerogative, mandated by 17.4 million British electors. It seemed fitting to the opponents of Brexit that four individuals should enjoy the right to frustrate the clearly expressed wishes of those 17.4 million voters.

Then the Government appealed, bringing 11 Supreme Court judges into play. This enlarged the number of Brexit decision makers to a total of 15 individuals, dangerously close to mob rule in the establishment mindset, but still preferable to dictation by 17.4 million stupid plebs.

Meanwhile, the moat cleansers and duck-house proprietors at Westminster staged a vote on invoking Article 50 – the right supposedly denied to them that the Remain-supporting litigants were fighting to secure for MPs. Our legislators will know early in 2017 whether the Supreme Court will award them the right to hold the vote they actually held on Wednesday.


It was disingenuous of the Remain litigants to pretend to come to the rescue of a gagged House of Commons. That House can bring down any government at any time by means of a vote of No Confidence. It can vote on anything if a majority of members wish to do so. In an attempt to put some flesh on the skeletal case, there were suggestions the Court might insist Parliament pass legislation.

So, have we got this right? The courts are now arrogating to themselves the right to order Parliament to pass legislation of the judiciary’s choosing? That, in any case, is the last thing MPs want to do. Although a majority of them are as pro-EU and anti-British as Tony Blair, they fear the triple terrors of deselection, constituents’ revenge at the ballot box and the rough justice of the lamppost if they overtly resist Brexit.

The dogs in the street know the High Court should have recused itself collectively from this vexatious litigation and declared treaty negotiation under royal prerogative – and Brexit is all about treaties, from Rome to Lisbon – non-justiciable within its jurisdiction. Instead, activist judges chose to build their part, as they have consistently done in recent decades. As a consequence, the last diminishing shreds of respect for the judiciary have been dissipated. A mass circulation daily newspaper featured the photographs of the three judges on its front page with the headline: “Enemies of the People”.

Cue orchestrated indignation by the establishment. The elites have a knee-jerk response to any impertinent criticism of the institutions that protect their ascendancy. It is a disciplinary system honed in public schools, at high table and in the gothick grotesquerie of the Palace of Westminster. Assume a severe expression that effectively combines superior knowledge (one is an expert, defending experts), disdain for the ignorance of one’s interlocutor and a clear message that the heretical critic’s career prospects are becoming more dismal by the minute, then deliver the formal reprimand.

This is uttered in the relevant formula dictated by the object of the blasphemy. “These judges are the finest legal brains in the land…” “So you choose to ignore the established consensus of 160 per cent of scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming…” “Britain will descend to Third World status within five years unless it joins the single currency…” These solemn-faced buffoons are still indulging in this pantomime of pseudo-authority and increasingly, fearfully, wondering why it is being laughed to scorn by the public.

That public for too long accorded an undeserved deference to politicians, judges and commentators who brought this country to its knees under the pressure of mass immigration, fiscal incompetence, judicial indulgence of criminality (though not of Christian bakers) and globalist anti-patriotism. It does so no more. The public knows we are governed by pompous idiots and, more significantly, that they are idiots inimical to Britain’s interests and to the despised mass of the population. It is no longer prepared to tolerate the dictatorship of this confederacy of dunces.

The British Constitution is an oxymoron. Its being unwritten is an advantage if it is executed by men of goodwill who respect its spirit. In the hands of scoundrels it is an instrument of tyranny. In 1689, for example, such scoundrels declared that James II had “deserted the throne”, at a time when he still ruled Ireland with the exception of two towns and was actively raising an army to fight for the throne he had allegedly deserted. Expect similar creative mendacity throughout the struggle by the political class to re-impose its control over the insurgent electorate by reversing or diluting the EU referendum result.

Respect! Respect! That is the establishment demand on behalf of the “finest legal brains” of the Supreme Court. After all, that venerable court has been the pivot of justice throughout Britain’s seven-year history (“Hey, look – I mean – this is a young country,” as the Supreme Court’s first begetter told us). One of those fine brains spared an armed robber prison, instructing him instead to send flowers to his victims by way of apology.

The public no longer finds the other-worldly delusory mentality of Britain’s Gilbert and Sullivan institutions endearing. Behind a smokescreen of pedantry the reality is that the judiciary, hugely pro-EU as their CVs mostly demonstrate (otherwise the quangocrats would not have appointed them), are trying to stop Brexit. If they refrain from doing so in their judgement, which events have already rendered obsolete, it will only be because they will be deterred by the embarrassing transparency of such a ploy.

Either way, the British public is now as alienated from the judiciary as from the legislature. Patronising appeals to the ignorant public to defer to supposed “experts” fall on deaf ears. If Britain’s total emancipation from the doomed European Union is not proceeded with quickly, there will be very serious trouble. Nor is it any longer credible that the current established order can survive after the Brexit process.

It was the establishment on trial, and the verdict is guilty - Reaction

 

i have to ask. what are you scared of? your side won. its merely a process to legitimize it. theres been a 300 year constitutional issue running in the UK because of lack clarity and the way it's interpretation can be manipulated.
the signing date wont be put back because of it.
why participate in encouraging a back lash against the very thing you voted for? what do these people hope to achieve by attacking home rule and sovereignty?

 

Interesting perspective. We are led to believe that the judges are defending the constitution, and by implication the rights of us all, but in reality they are first and foremost defending the organisation to which they belong, namely the establishment.

 

For myself, before the vote I had expected we would have lost, if we had, sure we would have had a whinge for a while but I genuinely believe we would not have resorted to the sabotage tactics some remoaners have since the vote

The fear I think always was, yes if we win then the majority have spoken to leave but my fear was/is, will the remainers in politics and the government, sell us out?

The vote was never do you want to leave a little bit, stay a little bit, keep that but leave a little bit etc it was clear and precise, leave or not.

The biggest fear for brexiteers is will the government do as was asked or sell us a pup?

 

If the Remoaners had won we would have retained the status quo, there may have been calls for the fight to go on but there would have been no process to sabotage.

 

Not entirely, we could have claimed all kinds of things for a second vote such as clegg and farron amongst many have asked for, but I doubt brexiteers would have done so however

 

But there would have been zero chance of a second vote and without a process to derail we would have stumbled on to the next EU crisis.

 

Seems like Putin will be in charge of us all soon.....then we all really will have something to be concerned about.


Russia 'intervened to promote Trump' - US intelligence - BBC News

 

If the remoaners manage to derail the process after Article 50 is triggered that will be the time when we are squeezed for every last drop of blood.

 

The cynic in me fears that the Brexit win plays into the hands of the Remoaners.Having lost the vote they can use their wealth,(Gina Miller),and their position,(pseudo-independent judiciary),enabling them twist and distort the law,keep us inside the EU prison until the exit door can be permanently closed.
Had the Remoaners won,then UKIP and other escape committees might have gained a lot more support by the next General Election,possibly giving the majority a Government with the UK's interests at heart.
Instead of the spineless poseurs currently occupying the front benches

 

Indeed but if the exit door is permanently closed after the triggering of Article 50, when we will effectively be in no mans land, then there will be concessions demanded from us by the EU to return to the fold and who knows what they might be, but I could guess a few.

 

As to the CIA secret investigation (not very secret if the losing side got hold of it) there is an irony on the CIA discussing one country meddling in another's politics and elections.

I think basically that for many years the Americans and the west has been told that Russia is the boogey man and we must all buy more guns, bombs and anything military. That has kept the American arms companies very rich and their politicians well paid.

 

I doubt the door will close until the end of the 2 years and the agreement has been reached by both sides. Even then I think they will choose a date that is more about the next election than when the negotiations end,

 

Obama didn't interfere in our Referendum in order to favour one view then?
And the US is not pushing to change the Syrian regime by arming the rebels?
Jees the hypocrisy is breathtaking...

 

surely the out door is permanently open. if for some reason or another it was apparent a majority decided it was a bad idea and another vote was run and the country decided to remain that would be another fine example of British democracy?.
trump, putin, brexit environment this episode covers the lot. whats yer thoughts on this fella?
Episode 1004 RT — Keiser Report