The unelected and unaccountable UK Supreme Court’s outrageous constitutional decision – Boris Johnson is ‘GUILTY’ of breaking a law it has only just invented?

ABANDONED (but only ‘temporarily’) the longest sitting parliament for 400 years

We ordinary laymen don’t know much about the machinations of the law, and indeed our interests are generally restricted to avoiding any infringement, however minor, on the criminal side of it, but it is becoming increasingly evident to us that the judiciary here are secretly intent on increasing their power and influence to gain unwarranted control and advantage in British society.

That latter matter has become self-evident with the latest radical interference by the law in parliamentary affairs in the form of the Supreme Court acting as a constitutional court. It is a further incursion into the world of high politics, when on a judicial review application it pontificated and passed judgement on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogate parliament, over the annual conference season when traditionally it is suspended anyway. Its intervention to extend the law’s influence and power over parliamentary processes has caused untold damage to the British modus operandi that operates in the absence of a written constitution, as indeed has its mind-blowing arrogance in declaring that it had the right to overrule the Monarch’s prorogation, although already de facto in place, so consequently it was simply a mirage that hadn’t happened at all – an act that allowed self-omnipotent, villain, Speaker John Bercow, to order the falsification of Hansard records, the official verbatim report of proceedings of the House of Commons, and to totally erase the event of prorogation

Partisan Bercow will go down in history as the anti-BREXIT, 5 foot 6 bully-boy Speaker, of spending scandals, relentless grandstanding and pontificating on all matters, and one who has turned a role of studied neutrality into one of being an active participant, one who has repeatedly made unprecedented rulings, ripped up the Commons rulebook to discard and upend centuries of precedent against the advice of his parliamentary experts, and unilaterally changed the rules – a totally destructive meddling when the smooth operation of Westminster is critically dependent on everyone understanding and adhering to unwritten conventions, eh?

[Most modern states have a codified constitution, whereas Britain ‘does not’, but instead the system here relies on an informal one, heavily dependent on precedent, plus convention, Acts of Parliament, and court judgments]

We already have a situation where our Judges get appointed and promoted, all the way up to the Supreme Court, by their elite cronies behind closed doors without any public scrutiny, while they remain in-post notwithstanding crass mistakes, manifest misjudgments, and when even reprimands or law breaking is swept under the carpet. All that will have to change now, won’t it? It is a system that needs urgent reform and that will include judges being selected and vetted by proper open means

In past times, the political persuasion of judges haven’t normally been relevant, or been seen to be so, but when they stray into the political arena which they are increasingly eager and being encouraged to do, it becomes highly pertinent, wouldn’t you say? The days are numbered for judges to avoid public examination and critical judgement on their attitudes and performances – they will live to regret not keeping their heads down, and enjoying their relative untouchability while avoiding political controversy, won’t they?

The wheel has turned full circle, the public’s acceptance of courts’ impartiality has been crushed, and ongoing respect for judges will now depend on our right to know what are the private opinions, racial attitudes, religious beliefs, political leanings, and voting intentions of the current judiciary and BEFORE the new ones get appointed to their highly paid lofty positions.

When one considers the 11 Judges of Supreme Court sitting on the prorogation issue 2 weeks ago, you will know that they are a central part of the Establishment and are reportedly politically ‘anti-BREXIT’, and that together then with their ruling that the PM broke a law that never previously existed but was retrospectively implement by the eleven though they have tried to obscure that truth, their published judgement becomes perhaps less surprising, but nevertheless it amply demonstrates the rise of the courts’ intrusions that are linked to the demise of politics, don’t you think?

What is shocking though to us non-legal eagles is the sheer hypocrisy of its unprecedented, unanimously fishy ruling, in saying that the pros and cons of BREXIT were nothing to do with the Court, when the issue was ALL to do with BREXIT, wasn’t it? Moreover, the gall of giving a written judgement that asserted in one paragraph that the Court was not concerned with the PM’s ‘motives’ for the prorogation, only to contradict that just three paragraphs later when it decided it was in fact illegal because there was ‘no good reason’ for the PM to do it – do the Justices really think that we are all uneducated serfs that can’t read or don’t know that the synonym for ‘motives’ is ‘reasons’ or understand that their conclusion depended on them having assessing Johnson’s motives/ reasons/ grounds/ etc, and having failed to even second-guess them, eh?

[Judgement Para 58 “We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did.”

[Judgement Para 61 “It is impossible for us to conclude…..that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament…… It follows that the decision was unlawful.”]

There has previously been no control exercised over prorogation of any parliament anywhere!

Do not believe the assertion of the anti-BREXIT others who say that prorogation in the UK is usually routine and is never used for political ends, eh? Just take the case close at hand when ridiculous ex-PM John Major also joined in on the Supreme Court prorogation action to blisteringly assert that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament for 5 weeks was unjustified and so unlawful. That contribution was nothing short of bare-faced cheek, considering that not only was HE the PM that committed the UK to a binding international Treaty that passed political control of our Country to the EU without any consultation WHATSOEVER with the people, by him, by the government, by the MPs, or by ANYONE else, but HE was the person who himself prorogated parliament in 1997 immediately before an impending General Election simply to avoid parliamentary debate and public disclosure on a report into the Tories’ cash-for-questions scandal and that prorogation resulted in a parliamentary shut down of 6 WEEKS, the longest since 1924 – however he still lost the Election in one of the largest electoral defeats since the Great Reform Act of 1832!

We have the former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, previously lecturing about his lamenting on the rise of the courts and the decline of politics, but then demonstrating his personal bias on TV just a month or so ago by claiming that Johnson’s prorogation was ‘outrageous’, while nevertheless he arguing that it was actually lawful, but he now says that the Supreme Court was right to change the law – that’s typically judges closing ranks, isn’t it?

Or regarding the successful Miller UK constitutional law case of 2017 against the Brexit secretary, in a dissenting judgment from the majority of the justices, Lord Reed recorded that the legalisation of political issues was not always appropriate and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary, yet he switched horses and supported this latest Miller Supreme Court escapade against the Prime Minister – WHY? Legalised skullduggery?

This Supreme Court came up with their shockingly ‘non-dissented’ judgement that overruled the esteemed High Court’s ruling to throw out Miller’s bid to block the suspension of parliament when it judged that Johnson had been within his rights to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks.

The High Court application was heard by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

(Note: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales

[High Court Judgement Para 1 (part): We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable. It is not a matter for the courts]

This particular controversy needed to be settled politically without any intervention of the courts, as it was a matter solely for parliament, which is perfectly capable and empowered to deal with it, isn’t it? Yes, and since all ministers including the Prime Minister, are accountable to parliament, it could have halted any prorogation in its tracks by tabling a motion of no confidence in the PM and government

In our country Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, forbids judicial intervention in the domain of parliament but bizarrely the justices decreed however that the prorogation was ‘nothing’ to do with parliament, eh?

[The ‘prerogative’ powers of dissolution, foreign affairs, defence of the realm, and surely indeed ‘prorogation’, are not matters that lend themselves to outrageous rise of the unconstrained judicial review]

There is current unprecedented chaos in politics, by which democracy cannot operate and whereby Britain has a ‘minority’ government under siege that’s not in control of its parliament, it cannot run the Country, it cannot legislate, it cannot conduct foreign affairs, it is in limbo and is blocked from getting a mandate from the electorate, and all that is compounded by a parliament suffering an opposition that is led by someone that its own MPs won’t stomach as their PM, and it daren’t bring-down the government because it will get trounced in a General Election, plus a House of Commons infected with a debilitating virus of parties and rogue MPs unfazed by manifesto promises, who can’t accept that Remain lost the EU Referendum, so are intent on overturning the result at any constitutional and democratic cost to their Country.

How has this come about you may wonder? Well, there are some easily identifiable individuals who should be chained in the stocks.

Well, John Major is complicit in it all and belongs in a pillory rather than the lesser punishment device of the stocks, as his crimes against British democracy as outlined above were even greater than the others.

David Cameron cannot escape the public humiliation of the stocks, not because he called an EU In/Out referendum but because he didn’t enshrine into law the outcome, deliberately didn’t make any preparations for a Leave outcome, and then scurried away like a rat when the electorate sussed out his Project Fear lies

Take Tony Blair who was responsible for many misdemeanors apart from the most disastrous one of taking the UK into an illegal war with Iraq – he was also responsible for controversially sweeping aside of 1,400 years of history by replacing the frugally funded but effective Law Lords, who knew their legal place was to stay out of politics, with the failed 2009 experiment of an ultra-expensive [x5?] Supreme Court operation.

The Court instead of just undertaking the traditional tinkering with laws made by parliament, it in the absence of existing statute, now makes new law without any heed of parliament. It is a totally inappropriate legislative body for a country that doesn’t have a defined constitution for it to police

Our Supreme Court has been shown to be the prerogative primarily for benefit of the mega-rich using surprisingly unfettered Judicial Review and is not accessible by us normal mortals, is it?

Unfortunately our unwritten constitution, though prized for its flexibility, has nevertheless helped political Luddite types to created a chaotic situation at Westminster

Blair’s contribution to the Country’s political demise is further secured by his traitorous behaviour in becoming the modern day William Joyce voice of the EU in the UK as well as its adviser in chief on keeping us trapped in its institutions. As well as that, he surrendered to the IRA with the Good Friday agreement that has empowered the Republic of Ireland to pursue jurisdiction over the whole island against the will of the Northern Ireland people – and furthermore it has provided a block to BREXIT as Blair, aided and abetted by the republic’s Taoiseach, counselled Brussels to make it a sticking point. [Conversely, it has been a long-standing Unionist position that it is the EU’s backstop protocol that would wreck the Good Friday agreement]

Then there is Nick Clegg ex-LibDem leader, who as deputy-PM in the coalition government got his pieces of silver in the form of a 5 year fixed-term parliament, which he wanted from David Cameron as a quid pro quo for him and his MPs abandoning their principles and entering into government in support of the Tories. Clegg needed the guarantee of time because he didn’t trust Cameron and feared being ditched after a couple of years when the Conservatives could call a snap Election and get an absolute majority so not need the LibDems.

The disastrous effect of the act is evidenced by the comatose state of the UK government which resembles more like that of a banana republic than an advanced nation with the mother of parliaments and a country renowned for its democracy. This has come about by the unforeseen consequences of the significant transfer of power from the PM and Executive to the Commons, which has coincided with its infestation of a not so secret cabal of renegade MPs whose noses were put out of joint by their power being usurped by the public voting in a referendum in a way they didn’t agree with. The fallout of that is the population’s trust in politicians is at an all time low in a belief that they are self-serving, while there is no longer any confidence in the legitimacy of parliament itself

The Act also has allowed MPs elected for a particular party to defy the policies that they got elected on and then skip-off to join a different party of totally different ideals and policies without any reference to their electorate while enjoying the comfort of a full 5 years of power and position as a highly paid and expenses supported MP – plus racking-up a gold-plated pension to boot

It is an act that needs to be repealed immediately by the next government

Furthermore, Clegg and the LibDems fought in the first place to have a EU referendum but when the result was ‘Leave’, the followers- on declared “Bollocks to Brexit”, didn’t they?

On gender equality ground, we really shouldn’t leave out of the stocks, one Nicola Sturgeon leader of the SNP and first minister of the Scottish Assembly, who although not in Westminster in person, still pulls the strings of her party there. She has helped fire-up the furnace of chaos in the Commons in her quest to overturn the TWO referendums the SNP lost – that on Scottish Independence and that on the EU, eh?


[TODAY parliament will indeed be ‘prorogated’ and that uncontentious suspension comes ahead of a Queen’s Speech scheduled for next Monday. What did the Supreme Court’s unprecedented prorogation intervention and parliament recall achieve and what critical matters were dealt with in the Commons over the extra 2 weeks’ sitting, then? Answer: NOTHING and NONE respectively?]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.