Since I went to a British school, you have always been part of me. Now you are leaving, and it breaks my heart
Two recent ECJ rulings have serious global consequences for internet freedom.
NICOLA STURGEON has been a prominent anti-Brexit voice since the referendum and wants Scotland to be an independent state inside the EU – but she has been accused of having an ulterior motive by columnist Toby Young in a newly-released report.
In a pivotal week that could decide the future of Brexit and the fate of the world’s fifth largest economy, Johnson is trying to strike an exit deal with the EU to allow an orderly split with its biggest trading partner on Oct. 31.
But Johnson must navigate the complexities of EU politics to clinch a deal at an Oct. 17-18 EU summit and then try to convince a deeply divided British parliament on Oct. 19 to ratify any agreement.
If he succeeds, Britain will leave the bloc on Oct. 31 with arrangements to minimise disruption at borders and preserve the complex supply chains that underpin swathes of the economy.
Who backs Brexit? Agriculture is against it; industry is against it; services are against it. None of them, needless to say, support a no-deal Brexit. Yet the Conservative party, which favoured European union for economic reasons over many decades, has become not only Eurosceptic – it is set on a course regarded by every reputable capitalist state and the great majority of capitalist enterprises as deeply foolish.
If any prime minister in the past had shown such a determined ignorance of the dynamics of global capitalism, the massed ranks of British capital would have stepped in to force a change of direction. Yet today, while the CBI and the Financial Times call for the softest possible Brexit, the Tory party is no longer listening.
Dr Sarah Ingham is a member of Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham Conservative Association.
“We’re not at court to ask the court to jail Boris Johnson.”
Another day, another legal action by Joanna Cherry – this time to require the Prime Minister to comply with the so-called Benn Act and seek an extension to avoid leaving the EU without a deal. Despite her denial, the prospect of the Downing Street One being banged up is probably the only part of the process that most of the electorate can relate to.
‘Justiciable.’ Less than a month ago many voters are likely to have googled or reached for the dictionary to check the exact definition. Thanks to Cherry and more than 70 other MPs dragging judges into the toxic swamp that is politics today, the electorate is now aware it means ‘subject to trial in a court of law’.
Women affected by the state pension age increases have expressed disappointment after the High Court dismissed their claims that the changes were discriminatory.
Among them is 61-year-old Sandra Morris, who will not get her state pension until she is 66. Despite having chronic illnesses, she will continue to run her miniature artisan business until retirement age as, without her state pension, she cannot afford to take a step back.
Her partner, Pamela Shallcrass, 65, also has to wait another year for her pension.
Remainers have been pushing to not leave the EU since David Cameron came up with the Referendum and maybe for many years before.
When the Referendum result was announced, not leaving the EU should have been off the table, with only leaving with a deal or no deal the options.
To then, for remainers to campaign for no deal to b e off the table, was and still is illogical, except to ensure a deal is put forward which while saying it is a deal to leave when in reality it is not, in fact a deal in name only, such as the May deal. But then the remainers would not vote for that because it was adeal to leave.
Say I was the EU and looked at thr turmoil in Westminster where remainers are blocking leavers every move, would I offer a good deal to leave, yes, the answer would be NO.
For the EU can see that, if the remainers win, there will be no deal option, in effect the best card to play for leavers. In fact, they would see that the worst option for the EU would be a deal and the best to remain, which as I stated before should not be an option after the 2016 Referendum.
Leavers are arguing about democracy, but by their own actions they are showing democracy does not work, well only within their own terms.
Remainers should in fact withdraw and leave all decisions to leavers.
If the referendum in 2016 had gone the other way then the above would have been in reverse.
David Starkey insisted the speech Lady Hale gave before the ruling appeared closer to one given at a ”hustings” rather than a judicial debate. The language was verging on the political – it was political.
GW: The Cabal on both sides of the pond are becoming increasingly desperate. They are now pulling any sort of trick & pressing any button they can find. A good example of this is Jesse Philips’ irrational explosion in HofC. She needs anger management classes & perhaps she should not even be there if she can’t control her emotions. These people are thinkings with their feelings rather than with cold hard intellect. Any way you look at it (((they))) are thwarting the democratic process & I guess deep down it is getting to them. Their shadowy masters are jaagging their strings pretty tightly now & (((they))) are choking.
View original post 24 more words
‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’.
Those are the words of the Enacting Formula – the standard pattern of words which, with certain variations, precede the clauses of Bills at Westminster. In a single sentence, they capture the meaning of Parliamentary sovereignty.
They clearly don’t say that the legislature is the only source of this sovereignty – in other words, of law-making power. Rather, they tell a story. It is one of that power being shared by the Queen, through the executive branch of government, with the legislature.
That’s why it’s said that we’re governed by the Queen-in-Parliament: it is the place where the monarch, her Government, and the legislature come together. Parliament should work with harmony of a stately dance (come to think of it, “stately” is le mot juste), in which each dancer has his or her part to play. Some of the most riveting steps in their movements came about because of the English Civil War. The dance continues to this day.
The best way of understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday is to grasp that it reads the dance very differently – and, frankly, wrongly. “As long ago as 1611,” its ruling declared, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. The Court clearly has that civil war, and long-run up to it, very much in mind.
But the King (or, in this case, the Queen) is no longer “the government” – a truth that the learned judges seem to have forgotten as soon as they uttered it. Government is now a shared exercise between “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty” and those “Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons”. Or, to put it another way, Boris Johnson in no way resembles a Stuart Monarch. Quite apart from anything else, Charles I did not offer the Roundheads the chance to vote him out of office.
Neither is Dominic Grieve John Hampden; nor Lady Hale, Sir Edward Coke; nor Dominic Cummings “Black Tom Tyrant” – the Earl of Stafford, Charles I’s formidable adviser, who was eventually sacrificed as a scapegoat. If anyone thought they were. Above all, this Gollum of a Speaker is not, repeat not, John Lenthall.
It may be time for the Brexit debate to be dumped in favour of more important plans to stop the drift towards a technocratic European Reich. In this first of a Slog two-parter, we examine the real history of multidimensional Brexit sabotage, the slim chances of Sovereign Brexit being achieved, and how the Resistance could become unstoppable. Part 2 will appear later today.
There is a sort of potted history of meetings between UK and Brussels Brexit negotiators:
UKPol: Right, let’s get down to talking about how tariffs will work after Brexit….
Sprout: No, first you must agree to pay us a €39b divorce fee.
UKPol: There’s nothing in the Article 50 procedures about a divorce fee. Now, looking at….
Sprout: The clock is ticking.
UKPol: Well, maybe we can talk about a penalty in the context of a deal about overall trading procedures….
Sprout: No, you don’t…
View original post 1,055 more words