Bloody British Judges!

Posted by The Skibbereen Eagle | November 3, 2016 0


Great British Judges, so much better than those European chappies without a horsehair wig to their name?

What are our so called British Judges thinking supporting rights that were gained in the English Civil War by Parliament and the People against arbitrary rule by Royal Decree???

On the same day the odious Jayda Fransen of so called Britain First has been found by the courts to be an odious racist!! Shock, Horror, who would have thought? A shocking legal ruling limiting the rights of orange people with a bit too much slap to abuse racial minorities!! Is this what 90,000 Indian soldiers died for in WW11 and Polish Airmen fought in the Battle of Britain?


Next we’ll have a women whose ancestors were taken from India to the colony of British Guiana going to the High Court to assert the Sovereignty of Parliament over a hairy arsed constitutional anachronism called the Royal Prerogative being used by an arrogant Tory Government headed by a Prime Minister whose leadership has never been put to the country.

The defeat of King Charles I’s royalist army by parliament’s forces in the Civil War – and his subsequent execution in 1649 – ultimately led to the acceptance that democratic power was supreme, with the 1689 Bill of Rights requiring any changes to the law to be agreed by the Commons and Lords.

The senior judge who vetoed Theresa May’s attempt to trigger the European Union withdrawal, without a vote in parliament, fired a string of damning verdicts at the government in court. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas branded the government’s legal arguments as “divorced from reality” and “flawed at this basic level”. He also compared their case to the unlawful legal attempt by the then-Home Secretary to introduce tariffs for criminal injury compensation in 1995.


Here are seven of the most strongly worded and critical quotes from the 32-page judgement.

1) The Secretary of State (for Exiting the European Union’s) submission, in our view, glossed over an important aspect of this starting point for the interpretation of the European Communities Act 1972, and proceeded to a contention that the onus was on the claimants to point to express language in the statute.

2) The Secretary of State’s submission left out part of the relevant constitutional background. It was omitted.

3) In our view, the Secretary of State’s submission is flawed at this basic level.

4) The powerful constitutional principle that the Crown has no power to alter the law of the land by use of its prerogative powers is the product of an especially strong constitutional tradition in the United Kingdom. It evolved through the long struggle to assert parliamentary sovereignty and constrain the Crown’s prerogative powers. It would be surprising indeed if, in the light of that tradition, parliament, as the sovereign body under our constitution, intended to leave [this] continued existence.

5) The Crown cannot simply make and ratify ancillary treaties in the exercise of its prerogative powers and thereby create legal effects in domestic law.

6) [The Secretary of State’s interpretation of the evolvement of EU law on other member states for the benefit of British citizens] is a submission which is divorced from reality.

7) In our view, the Secretary of State’s submission is flawed at this basic level.

At its heart the ruling does no more than underscore the point that by triggering Article 50 the Government would ultimately be depriving British citizens of rights they enjoy as a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972, the primary legislation by which EU statutes were given effect in UK law. Since this is self-evidently a matter which impinges on domestic law, the exercise of prerogative powers cannot outgun the will of Parliament as previously expressed. In short, the judgment is not about whether Brexit can or should proceed, but about the right of Parliament to have a say in the matter.

Is this not what the Brexit Gang  wanted? To stop European judges meddling in British affairs and a desire to restore the sovereignty of this country’s Parliament. Yet now they cry foul at a ruling by British Judges in London which does little more than to assert the primacy of Britain’s Parliament over the prerogative powers of the Government .

It’s a funny old world, innit?


The Skibbereen Eagle

Latest posts by The Skibbereen Eagle (see all)

Comments are closed.