Today, the Supreme Court will again hear a case regarding Brexit and the proroguing of Parliament by the front runner stooge, Gina Miller.
It would appear that our Judiciary hold this woman high above any other U.K. citizen – so far, I have learnt of at least two cases being brought to Court by pro-Brexit supporters who are still waiting weeks later for their Appeals, yet this woman flies through with her cases!
Proroguing Parliament, a long held traditional custom, is a political matter not a matter of law. Lest we forget, Parliament is only a part of the British Constitution, the others being the Judiciary who interpret the laws and the Executive who governs (Separation of Powers).
It is not for the Judiciary to interfere in matters of a political nature. To do so, would show their own contempt for democracy, our constitution and the will of the supreme sovereignty which is held by the people. It is not for the Courts to interfere with the Executive, nor the Queen.
Gina Miller has no mandate. Boris Johnson holds the mandate from 17.4m people and that his Conservative Party should govern as Executive and remove the United Kingdom from the European Union.
This cabal of self-important, anti-democratic people have the audacity to claim they are ‘defending democracy’, yet it is democracy itself they are killing.
What is so important now, that they couldn’t have said in the last three and a half years? What alleged lie has Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, told the Queen? Did anyone bringing this case to Court hear the conversation?
Parliament, by majority, invoked Article 50, therefore starting the process of leaving the European Union, but at every turn this cabal try to prevent this from happening.
What is of so much importance now that could not have been said in three and a half years? Will they all cancel their party conferences to go back to Parliament? Why did you not take a shorter holiday and stayed within Parliament if the call is one of such important crises?
How can you speak of democracy when the Prime Minister twice offered a General Election, yet you turned it down?
These people have hijacked Parliament and are now attempting to usurp the function of the Executive by introducing their absurd ‘Benn Bill’ which has been allowed to happen even though this is surely illegal? How can Parliament take over the Executive in a democracy and look to the Judiciary for endorsement?
If the Judiciary agree with this case, then they are also assenting to the fact that this act (‘Benn Bill’) was comprised by colluding with the EU in its composition and delivery which in itself is an indictable offence.
The courts would do well to remember the year 1997, when John Major, the then Prime Minister, who is today part of this cabal, prorogued Parliament himself. Not wishing to wait for a published report on ‘cash for questions’, the Parliamentary session was suddenly ended. Proroguing on the Friday, just in time to not receive the report which was due on the following Monday or Tuesday and which, due to proroguing was buried.
This is the man who, in 1993, signed the Maastricht Treaty which made all the British people, including the Queen, citizens of the EU with obligations to the Union and further gave away our sovereignty and powers to be governed by the unelected European Commission. John Major refused to give the British People, on such an important constitutional matter, a Referendum on the matter. At the time, Mrs. Thatcher said ‘To say that our power comes only from the ballot box and then we ignore such a big constitutional change, seems to me to be utterly wrong. There is only one way to elevate a single issue and give it the importance which this one deserves and that is to have a specific referendum.’
It is NOT within the gift of the Crown and Parliament to transfer sovereignty and powers, so delegated by the electorate at the time of election, to a foreign country or entity, and in doing so, externally. By signing these Treaties and the very ‘Benn Bill’ recently introduced, has done exactly this. Parliament is elected to enable them to administer the affairs of the state internally.
I can only conclude that they all live ‘inside their own bubble’ unaware of the anger and feelings of the majority of the Electorate outside. The Judiciary should tread very carefully and consider that the 17.4 m electorate might not be there, standing outside the Courts today, but nonetheless they watch and wait. Will they do the right thing, and throw this pathetic absurdity to the bins or too go against our very Constitution and conspire with those in Parliament to govern the country and usurp the very function of the Executive? We wait and see.