UK DEMOCRACY, JUDICIAL STYLE
Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled', http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au
Where else would this have happened. A referendum is held, the people have voted and now a bunch of unelected judges have decided that the people can’t have what they voted for. If this had been anywhere outside of the European Union, the UN would have imposed sanctions and the Americans would be putting together a “coalition of the willing” ready to invade.
In the European Union however, this is business as usual. The will of the British people is simply a quaint irrelevance.
Welcome to the Hotel European Union,
You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave.
I can understand the euphoria of the remainers. Of course they will be happy to see Brexit derailed. What amazes me is their assertion that this is “restoring the sovereignty of the British Parliament” and “a triumph for democracy.”
Do these people have no shame, or just no brain? The whole point of leaving the EU was to restore the sovereignty of the democratically elected British Parliament. While Britain remains in the EU, the Parliament in Westminster can only pass laws with the permission of the EU. It has no sovereignty worth speaking of.
As for the Judges who passed this ruling, they have done terrible damage to the credibility of the Judiciary. Civil wars have started over lesser issues.
Under the Westminster system, the Parliament passes the laws and is accountable to the voters. If they pass unpopular laws, the citizens have the right to vote them out and replace them with people who will change the laws. This is how democracy works.
The job of the Judiciary is not to challenge laws, but to ensure that politicians abide by them. In effect, they are upholding “the rule of law.” They ensure that the Government works within the laws that the citizens have allowed them to pass. That is how judges protect people from the abuse of power by governments. They do not protect people by making, or striking down, laws passed by the democratically elected parliament.
Referendums are the ultimate expression of the citizens will. Politicians are elected as managers of the country’s affairs. They have considerable leeway to pass legislation as they see fit within their allotted mandate. However, a referendum is a direct decision by the people on a specific issue which the Government has no right to oppose.
By removing the right of the Prime Minister to trigger Brexit, these judges are not taking power from the Prime Minister and giving it to the Parliament. They are taking power from the people and giving it to the Parliament.
This is a shocking abuse of judicial power. The Parliament deliberately handed this decision to the people. The Members of Parliament are supposed to be the servants of the people. Yet according to these unelected judges, the people don’t have the right to make their own decisions. Any decision the people make directly through a referendum, must be sent back to the Parliament who will then decide whether the people will be allowed to have their way.
What makes this even worse is that the British Upper House (House of Lords) is largely unelected. Brexit cannot go ahead unless it is passed by the Lords.
The House of Lords shortly before the bar opens...
... and shortly after
So the people of the United Kingdom have voted directly on this issue. Then, an unelected group of judges has refused to allow the decision to go ahead until it is approved by a group of unelected Lords. These Lords could block this law completely and transfer all future power to make Britain’s laws to an unelected group of unknown dictatorial bureaucrats in the EU.
That is not what I would consider to be a “triumph of democracy” or the “restoration of the sovereignty of the parliament.” This is a shameless power grab by the elites to dispossess the British people of what is left of their democratic rights.
The Supreme Court Judges pretended that this was purely a legal interpretation. I want to say straight up here that I am no lawyer. However, three of the judges dissented and ruled that Teresa May did have the right to trigger Brexit without a parliamentary vote. Two of these Judges were pro-European.
If three of the finest legal minds in the country can come to this decision, then clearly the others could have done so too. This was simply one possible interpretation, and a very reckless one in my opinion.
These judges have denied the British people the right to a democratically made decision. On its own, this would have been a terrible precedent to set. These judges are not fools however, and they would be aware of the possible consequences of this decision.
Lord Chief Justice and two senior colleagues throw into chaos PM May's timetable for invoking Article 50
As members of the European Union, the British people are subject to the laws made by the EU which trump British law. These laws are not made by the European Parliament. They are made by unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown bureaucrats. These people are dictators in all but name and are steadily removing all traces of resistance to their power.
If Britain is prevented from leaving now, the Poms will not only lose their right to vote on this law. There is every chance that at some time in the not too distant future, they will lose their right to vote on any law. In effect, the British people will have become the subjugated citizens of a foreign dictatorship.
I guess we shouldn’t have expected too much from a bunch of judges however. They all start off their careers as trial lawyers which is not a profession renowned for human decency.
There is an old joke which says that scientists are now using trial lawyers for experiments because there are some things which even a rat wouldn’t do.
I think the Brexit decision would definitely fit into that category.