Rule of law or rule by lawyers?

Interesting times - dammit!  We non-lawyers can only shake our heads in puzzlement as we contemplate the High Court of England voting 3-0 in support of Boris's proroguing of Parliament, and the Supreme Court ruling 11-0 against it!  In both cases, a bit like a Soviet Praesidium, no dissent permitted! 

First of all, let me say that I was disturbed by Boris's attempt to shut down Parliament in order to avoid opposition to his policies.  I understand full well the temptation to utilise real-politik in pursuance of your political aims and in order to thwart your political foes but it needs to be used with care and sophistication - not qualities I would immediately ascribe to Boris or his, er, 'advisors'.

Second of all, I should make it clear that any respect I have for any lawyer of any rank is strictly conditional!  To assume that these 'Cocklecarrots' somehow live in a higher echelon of being from the rest of us, totally free from from prejudice and incapable of error, is to move closer to belief in Father Christmas!  Needless to say, just like the plumber who comes to fix a leak in your house, you grant him a certain amount of respect given his superior qualifications but only until such time as a second leak occurs!  Thus it is with lawyers.

As to the immediate future, we Brexiteers must sit tight and watch our, er, 'Mother of Parliaments' twist every rule in the book in order to thwart the will of the People as expressed in a free referendum that the politicians themselves initiated.  There is only one sword that can cut through this 'gordian knot' and that is a general election.  Let the Remainers try everything they can to piss on the People, sooner or later  - our turn will come!

ADDITIONAL:

Dammit, dammit, no sooner had I written the above than I clicked on to The Telegraph site and read what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written today.  There you have it, before your very eyes, the 'yuuuuuge' difference between pros and ams - I am almost embarrassed!  Go read him - now!

 

 

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

What do you do after you lose trust in your institutions? All your institutions? What happens to a civilization when every public institution, everything we are supposed to trust and believe has provably lied to us?

This is happening on both sides of the Atlantic. Institutions no longer trust or fear their respective peoples. In fact, a solution to those pesky people is to replace them. None of this ends well.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

[Bob]

'Tis a good and increasingly rare Duff post that shows some restraint and an acknowledgement of more than one side to an issue. Good work, David. The title raised an expectation you'd be throwing in with Dick the Butcher.

[Whyaxye]

Check out today's Parliamentary speech by Attorney General Geoffrey Cox. He lets Parliament have it with both barrels. A real tonic, I promise you.

[Wigner’s Friend]

Found this quite interesting:

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/

[David Duff]

Thanks, 'Wiggers', a fascinating article and I URGE EVERYONE TO GIVE IT A READ!

[Loz]

What an embarrassment that linked article is. More contradictions than you could shake a stick at: -

The Prime Minister’s wish to prorogue Parliament (one of the longest-standing in history) was to in turn defend democracy by blocking the sabotage of 415 in favour of 17.4 million citizens. Neither I, you, nor any of these Supreme Court Judges can know what his motives beyond that might have been….let alone whether he misled the Queen or not.

No-one can know what BoJo's motivations were we are told, and yet all of us should know the motivations of the 11 judges as laid out by him in the paragraphs previous to that one. What a tit.

The 415 MP's he calls undemocratic were elected by the British people in accordance with the UK constitution and due process. If people didn't like the Brexit stance of their MP they had the chance to get rid and vote Ukip. But they didn't. The people voted to clip Theresa "No deal is better than a bad deal" May's wings, hang the parliament, and elect 415 Remain MP's. In what way is that undemocratic? And that election happened AFTER the referendum and so has precedence. Double tit.

Just because the will of the people didn't go his way and reversed an earlier decision that he favoured is no reason to call the outcome undemocratic.

The will of the people changes and it's the last one that counts. Get over it. Besides we're going to get another will-call in due course, so stop whinging.

SoD

[Loz]

You couldn't make it up ...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/exclusive-government-plan-to-invoke-eu-laws-supremacy-to-ensure-brexit-on-halloween/amp/

Despite the campaign to bring parliament back to discuss Brexit, the Commons adjourned at 5:04pm yesterday and will not sit tomorrow.

How can anyone in their right mind want these utter barrel-scrapings in sole control of the country?

SoD

[Glesga]

Over in Oostende Belgium visiting the Atlantic Wall. Brexit is all over the EU news. The EU beaurocrats will miss the funding and have to cut back on their flozzies and get some 10 Bob hotels to lay them. Time to leave and trade with Russia and others.

[Wigner’s Friend]

SoD,

“If people didn't like the Brexit stance of their MP they had the chance to get rid and vote Ukip”. You ignore the fact that both major parties and their candidates had a commitment to respect the result of the Referendum in their manifestos.