Total Visits

Friday, 15 July 2016



My attention was caught by the report of this letter in the Independent. It is instructive to look at the list of the thousand or so lawyers who have signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (saying that the EU referendum result is merely “Advisory” and not “legally binding”). The list includes all the usual suspects: internationalists, social justice campaigners and globalist Remain camp lawyers, etc., who are to a “person” anti-English.

Those who read the letter carefully, certainly those with legal training, will have noted that the letter writers are careful not to overstate their case whilst appearing to suggest that the result is “Advisory”.

In fact it is constitutionally obvious that the referendum is “Advisory” in the British Governmental system. This is a system in which the democratic vote of the People in a General Election and the election of Members of Parliament is technically largely “Advisory”. The basis of the appointment system for Ministers is technically that of the Royal Prerogative. They are technically Royal Appointments to deal with matters of the Royal Government.

Since Sir Robert Walpole, it has been necessary for the Prime Minister to retain the confidence of the House of Commons as well as the Monarch. As the balance of initiative has tipped toward the House of Commons and away from the Monarch, political power has come more into the hands of an “Executive” based, as it is in our current constitutional arrangements, within the legislature.

Whilst Democracy generally therefore has been “Advisory” to the British constitutional construct of the “Crown in Parliament”, nevertheless it has been so long since a Monarch or Government thought it could ignore such “Advisory” democracy that many commentators have forgotten that it is constitutionally possible.

It is therefore “deceptive”, to say the least, for these “Lawyers” to even imply that the referendum’s result could be treated as not being politically, morally or constitutionally in effect binding.

I was also amused to read their comment that “there is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by mis-representations of fact and promises that could not be delivered”. Many of those misrepresentations and promises were those of the Remain side!

The idea that the result was “only narrowly in favour of Brexit” is also a ridiculous proposition especially in England where, if you remove Gibraltar from its inclusion in the English figures (in most of the published results), the majority in England was almost 2 million voters. In any case more people voted for Brexit than have ever voted for any British Government!

It is equally fanciful for these “Lawyers” to claim that the positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require “special consideration” since their populations did not vote to leave the EU. The only special consideration that they should get is that they will either have to leave the EU as the English have voted to do so, or Leave the UK. They will not be able to Remain in both Unions.

The silliest point of all of course is the idea that the activation of Article 50 requires a parliamentary vote. The constitutional position is simple. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Queen and in exercise of the royal prerogative has an unfettered ability to trigger the kind of Notice that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty requires. The only fora in which there could be any argument about the validity of the Article 50 Notice is within the EU institutions. Provided the Council of Europe are happy that a proper Article 50 Notice has been given, then the process of Exit will commence. That is whatever a relatively small proportion of the total number of lawyers in the UK may think!

For information, I would suggest that the number of barristers, solicitors, in-house lawyers and advocates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales would probably exceed 300,000. As the word of “Lawyer” is rather a vague term, the total number of “Lawyers” may well exceed 500,000, of which it would appear that only approximately 1,000 were sufficiently ideologically committed Remainers to sign this letter!

Here is the text of the “Lawyers” letter:-

9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which
reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise
following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is
that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe
that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary
legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process
is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and
risks of triggering Article 50.

The reasons for this include the following: There is evidence that the
referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and
promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be
discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or
contributory factor in the result.

The parliamentary vote must not be similarly affected. The referendum
did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in
polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the

This is presumably because the result was only advisory. The outcome of
the exit process will affect a generation of people who were not old
enough to vote in the referendum.

The positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require
special consideration, since their populations did not vote to leave the EU.

The referendum did not concern the negotiating position of the UK
following the triggering of Article 50, nor the possibility that no
agreement could be reached within the stipulated two year period for
negotiation, nor the emerging reality that the Article 50 negotiations
will concern only the manner of exit from the EU and not future economic

All of these matters need to be fully explored and understood prior to
the Parliamentary vote. The Parliamentary vote should take place with a
greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as
businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the

For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government
establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent
independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed
timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to
the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.

The Parliamentary vote should not take place until the Commission has
reported. In view of the extremely serious constitutional, economic and
legal importance of the vote either way, we believe that there should be
a free vote in Parliament.

Yours sincerely


And 1053 others

(Here is a link to the original in the Independent>>>


  1. Robin, I can't remember if I said that on InfoWars there was a reference to the fact that the West is now engaged in a battle between globalism and nationalism. Any of us with an ounce of common sense, like Enoch Powell, could have predicted that it would end in tears as nations in the end fought to maintain control of their borders, national identity and sovereignty against the elites and their globalist dream. Amused to see that Hungary is letting in 15 refugees a day after a rigorous vetting process; and they are due to hold a referendum on an EU imposed quota on 2nd October. I have just seen a billboard for the local rag, here in the back of beyond, about a local council discussing housing refugees.

    As regards this letter, there is good news in the appointment of David Davies, a gentleman and one of the few honest politicians around, to head the negotiations. He has said that he wants to trigger article 50 before the end of the year and even Theresa May who hedged her bets in the Brexit campaign has said Brexit means Brexit. Hopefully, the debate in parliament about challenging the will of the people will die the death on 5th September. In fact, Theresa May is fighting the British establishment to bring an end their virulent Russophobia, which is good news. All the misery at present afflicting Europe, Russia and the Middle East is the work of an elitist few bent on worldwide hegemony.

    I have just read that an interviewer on television of Pakistani heritage has blamed Nigel Farage for the sort of divisions in Europe which have lead to the Nice attack. Doubtless she would express the same view to you Robin. And I saw a Muslim gentleman on Russia Today last night saying that the current climate of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia in this country is leading to the further radicalisation of Muslims and will lead to further terror attacks. I have been told that there is now talk of arming folk in the country and the holiday coasts, the soft underbelly, against a possible attack on our beaches. So we are in a vicious circle and as the number of ethnic minorities increase vis a vis the natives, nothing will change, it will only get worse.
    France's neighbours have closed their borders trapping the French in a sort of killing field.
    And the French prime minister has said that there is nothing to be done, the people will just have to learn to live with terror. I first went to France youth hostelling with a friend aged 15 in 1967. Then you could wander all over Europe west of the Iron Curtain without fear. But that was before the globalist dream of racial, cultural and national fusion took hold and rotted the brains of those who told us that they knew best.

  2. These lawyers, should be ashamed. England with the largest population confederate as did many others. Scotland knew there was going to be UK referendum on the European Union. Yet they still voted to remain part of the UK. If Scotland now feels so strongly because they can't have their own way then leave the England but it must understood it means totally leaving without any handouts financially from England. If Scotland trusts the EU more than England more fools them.

  3. Majority voted OUT. Democratic vote. So don't throw dummy out of pram. Except and help to make it work instead of trying to undermind the public vote.

  4. Robin, these people have not given up. The latest news is that they are going to blame the Brexit campaign, including Boris Johnson, who gave a good speech in Brussels, for having misled the public with blatant lies and scare tactics. Not sure what those lies were but the scare tactics of the Remain campaign were much much worse. And they are accusing the Brexiters also of incitement to racial hatred. In Cleveland, Ohio, the Left are engaged in the same sort of tactics with regard to Trump.

    The incitement to racial hatred thing is interesting. Anybody in any hitherto virtually all white country who is not happy with nor ever wanted the multicultural pluralist dream is attacked with the cry of racism. Racism, as the Frankfurt School planned, will be the tool to bring down European civilisation both in Europe and beyond. They are now close to succeeding. Mass immigration was always going to be one of their methods.

    But on that score, I heard a lady from the LSE on Afshan Rattansi on RT last night, saying that Brexit is all part of a class war with a backlash coming from the working classes who have been treated with contempt since the arrival of Mrs T in 1979. It was revealed that 80% of the English working classes voted for a Brexit. Rattansi then pointed out that those same people would call themselves English rather than British so it is about immigration. The lady, an avowed anti-racist, skipped over that one and went back to the class war for all, no matter what their "heritage", on low incomes unable to support their families. She kept talking about the working class as opposed to the cosmopolitan and metropolitan elites. But those elites are pro-pluralism whereas the English working classes totally abandoned by their Labour Party are not. She did say that those in parliament were useless i.e. in some sort of cosmopolitan bubble.

    This, however, was interesting as it showed that the class sneered at as the "white working class" view themselves as the rump of the indigenous English. All attempts to find alternative explanations have come back to the fact that the Brexit result was down to mass immigration. The lady said that we do not want a return to parades by the National Front in the streets as in the 1980s. But the fact that the National Front are still around has, perhaps, shown that large numbers of the English are not happy with what has been down to their homeland and perhaps never will be. I wonder if this comment will be another one to be taken out by the mysterious hand before it is chosen to appear.

  5. Those lawyers are bad losers. Are they aware that all the so called human rights, hate speech and equality laws are probably unlawful thanks to the English Bill of Rights dated 1688?

    If these lawyers want to get technical then we can override them with the English Bill of Rights. Where are all those lawyers chasing the racist rich Pakistani origin child grooming gangs? Yes we know they keep silent. Robin have you ever heard of the "Solicitors From Hell" website? These lawyers are a disgrace to your profession as is that odious Baroness Oona King to my CIPD profession following her refusal to accept the BREXIT referendum result.

    Robin these people provoke the English white working classes to hate the liberal middle classes. The sooner they start self reflecting the better. Instead they try and silence criticism using expensive and draconian defamation proceedings that only makes matters worse.