Total Visits

Friday, 17 November 2017

REMAINERS ARE TRAPPED BY THE RESULT OF THE GINA MILLER CASE


REMAINERS ARE TRAPPED BY THE RESULT OF THE GINA MILLER CASE

One thing that is all too obvious when trying to deal with any part of Government these days is the striking degree of incompetence.  This may well be the result of the selection for jobs by multi-culturist, PC tokenistic, tick-boxing rather than by trying to select the best people for the job?

There is also, of course, the vast and casual waste of taxpayers’ money! 

One of the less remarked upon things is the huge volume of unnecessary, overly prescriptive, complicated and downright ineffective legislation that Parliament passes.  It seems to be all too prevalent that the qualification for being in our legislature is to be utterly incompetent in dealing with any matter relating to the Law!

I remember a few years Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Lib Dem Peer who had been a high quality solicitor in private practice, retired from the Lords saying that he thought the whole thing was pointless when our State is now passing over 10,000 pages of legislation every single year?

The result of this deluge of legislative verbal diarrhoea is that it is no longer possible for anyone to know the law, let alone for any citizen to know where they stand as against the State.  The whole legal system has been swamped and is a muddle. 

In a way nothing is better as an example than the latest twittering amongst the twitterati about whether Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty could be revoked and thus keep the UK within the EU and block the EU referendum.

This is a typical example of our political class’ incompetence. There are of course two bodies that have jurisdiction on deciding this. One is Parliament.  All the commentators who are Remainers were gleeful about Gina Miller’s case being taken up to the Supreme Court where there was a ruling that Parliament had to legislate in order for the Government to be legally able to serve the Article 50 notice (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf .  Bizarrely they are now claiming that Parliament by mere resolution could overrule the effect of that Statute! This is a basic error, not only of law, but of the constitution, since it is elementary that no Parliamentary resolution can override a statute.

In the circumstances the only way in which Parliament could overturn the Article 50 notice Act (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017)  would be by a further Act of Parliament. 

So we have the amusing and delightful situation where Remainer MPs are trapped by the Miller case, whereby they cannot undo the Article 50 Notice at this end of the process without a further Act of Parliament.

Realistically this is politically impossible and would probably be ineffective in any case for reasons which I will explain below. 

The other jurisdiction and body which would determine whether a revocation of the Article 50 Notice was valid is the European Court of Justice.  Whatever the EU Commissioner might think, or the Council of European Union Governments or the EU Parliament think, the final word would be with the European Court of Justice.  That decision would probably take 5 years during which the situation of the UK would be in a permanent state of uncertainty. 

This Twitter stream has all been brought on by the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, confirming what was logically obvious, which is that the default position on whether there is a deal is that there is no deal. 

Given that the EU has set itself up to be as difficult as possible in this negotiating process, they always made it very likely that there would be no deal, but the Remainers seemed to think that they were going to have some opportunity to decide whether or not whatever was offered was going to be sufficient.  David Davies confirmed that in the event that Parliament rejected whatever deal was offered, then the effect would be that there was no deal.

Since David Davis is likely not to be bringing back very much in the way of a deal anyway we now have massive inertia tending towards no deal from both the EU side and from the UK side.

Fortunately the effect of no deal isn’t at all what the Remainers are saying.  It is simply that we go into the normal world trade on free trading terms and on a WTO basis, just like most of the other countries that trade perfectly successfully with the EU. 

The EU for their part also go onto the same WTO terms with us.  Since the balance of trade for the last 30 years has been more or less constant in their favour it is right to say that the EU will lose more than we will.  Our Government receipts from their payment of tariffs is likely to be much greater than the EU’s receipts from our tariffs.  Our profligate and wasteful Government might even be able to pay its way with a balanced budget, at least for a little while, based upon these extra receipts!

6 comments:

  1. I feel we've at least passed the point of legal no return whatever the so called Tory rebels do on votes.
    If they push too far on the enabling measures an election would still return May in the current nuts climate, as at least moving forward slowly- rather than drowning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Heartening to see the current dire state of legislative affairs is enough to exasperate even a seasoned solicitor such as your good self.

    UKIP originator Professor Alan Sked had an interesting letter published in the London Evening Standard a week or two ago. It reads as follows (I claim any typos):

    "_No deal over Brexit is our best option_

    THE letter from our former ambassador to Sweden argues that the choice facing the UK in Brexit negotiations is either to replicate what it already has but to lose control or conclude with no deal. Clearly, the latter is by far the better choice.
    This would save us billions of pounds immediately, allow is to dismantle regulations inimical to our interests, enable us to negotiate free-trade treaties around the world and deal with the EU on the same terms as the US, India, China, Japan and most of the world.
    Like them, we would have to pay small tariffs but these have already been more than offset by the decline in the value of the pound. No deal therefore seems the better one.

    Professor Alan Sked
    London School of Economics."

    I repeat what I have said before: that the so-called divorce bill is principally if not exclusively the price to be paid by UK taxpayers in general for allowing a select class of 'financial services providers' in the City of London (spiritually at least) to continue to be able to sell their wares in Europe as hitherto. Tusk's latest demand with menaces reported in the news today can only confirm he knows that is the score; in this case they who pay the piper will not be calling the tune (if MPs are allowed to get away with it).

    How heart-warming to see Hodge berating the wickedness of 'offshore' tax avoiders. Perhaps she could explain to us all why Jeremy Corbyn signed but has now forgotten EDM 748 on monetary reform. Also, how much of the tax take is spent on servicing Government indebtedness for moneys "borrowed" in the way of bonds subscribed and advances made by banks where such moneys are for the most part from ledger entry, aka credit, and are not advances of existing funds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very interesting and illuminating Robin.

    I never thought the Gina Miller case would come back to bite the remainiacs, but that is the problem with trickery which her legal case was all about.

    Trickery almost always has side effects unwanted by the trickster.

    Transgenderism was the unwanted outgrowth from feminism and now the feminazis are furious.

    The only area where trickery has not yet suffered is so called race relations but I am sure the back-swing will be full scale when it does.

    The good news on the continent as that the Poles and Hungarians are leading the fight against the EU from within and now Germany is starting to question it too.

    Francis

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem for the EU is that, as far as I know, only the United Kingdom and Germany are net contributors. Hence they are desperate to squeeze as much cash out of us before we go. Otherwise, the Germans, faced with the task of keeping the rest of the EU afloat will rebel and if they go the EU goes down the plughole. As regards Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Eastern Europe's illiberal democracies, they, along with Russia, are the only hope of retaining any vestige of European identity in Europe - it has already gone in the US and is on its way in Canada. Hence the liberal media's hatred of Putin and Orban. The news that Russia, Turkey and Iran have brought peace to Syria and are to bring warring factions together to hammer out an more democratic solution, means that the West has been destroyed by greed and Marxism and is no longer a player on the world stage. Now the United States coalition is to be given its marching orders there. Coupled with Israel they, as Hillary Clinton admitted, created ISIS to bring down Assad and others and have failed. The future now belongs to Eurasia whilst the West argues about things like transgenderism. This is the result of not standing up to Marxism and money power. Sad to see the Continent that gave civilisation to the rest of the world fall on its sword; but as Tommy Robinson said, Marxism like communism will brook no opposition. Anybody who stands up to it will either lose their job or face imprisonment, just like the old Soviet bloc.

    Meanwhile, ex-banker Hammond has told us that we need to borrow more - quantitatively eased - cash and that we will not finish paying off the debt now until I have met my maker in the 2030s. And he tells us that we are going to have a concrete corridor of housing between Oxford and Cambridge of a million homes to cope with the housing shortage.

    We are not stupid you Tory leech, we know that you are just helping your developer friends who will pour cash into Tory party funds. England is trapped, as Lady Jane Birdwood used to say, between Marxism and Money Power. The Tories just want to enrich the one per cent under the guise of helping the homeless resulting from mass immigration they secretly support. 95% of the taxpayers' 2008 bailout of the banks has found its way into the pockets of the richest 1%. On the other side, the Left want immigrants for their votes and to bring about their flawed Marxist revolution. Just like Lenin, they don't care about the people at all, especially the native English. Where do we go from here? Sickos all of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bringing down the EU is an important first step but the real problems of diversity and multiculturalism need to be dealt with by war I am afraid.

      The globalist/Marxist banker alliance is falling and yes Eastern Europe and Eurasia are the future. Turkey needs to dump Islam first but that's another story. It has often been said that Turkey is the seat of the antichrist.

      The sooner globalism falls the better. The other day someone floated the idea of being ruled by Poland, initially I wasn't too impressed but they way things are going it would be better than what we have at the moment - unwanted cultural Marxism.

      Francis

      Delete