BORIS, THE RESCUER OF BREXIT? (OR JUST THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY?)
We now live in a country where if you rely on the mainstream media for
your information then you will be misinformed!
A good example of this was all the hype about Boris’ Government being
dominated by hard-lined Leavers. The
longstanding Eurosceptic MP for Wokingham, Sir John Redwood, put us straight on
that with this tweet:-
“There has been much misleading comment
masquerading as analysis about the nature of the new Cabinet.
There are just two
members who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement on all three
occasions it came forward, and three who voted against it on two of
the three occasions.
There
are fourteen who voted Remain plus the Chief Whip.
The big majority of
the Cabinet supported Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement, and some were
particularly vocal in urging others to do so.”
Boris of course has been a breath of fresh air
in whacking Labour all over the court in the parliamentary tennis match. Boris does also talk a good line in
positivity and also of getting us out of the EU by the 31st October
“do or die”. He is also claiming that he
is not going to call a General Election before the delivery of Brexit.
Despite this assurance Boris’ behaviour is
sounding rather like preparations for a General Election. The new Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, dared Remainers to pass an Act of Parliament revoking the Article 50
Notice. This may well be part of a
strategy to trigger a General Election on the ticket of trying to get Brexit
“over the touch line”.
If so, it should be remembered that all the
Tory Remainer rebels, the Gaukes, the Stewarts the Letwins, the Grieves, etc.,
will get re-elected if the Conservatives do well because there will not have
been time to purge them from standing.
An early General Election, whilst good for getting Conservative
candidates re-elected, may not help in the slightest with the parliamentary
difficulties over Brexit.
I do think one of the litmus tests of whether
or not Boris’ Government genuinely is willing to allow a ‘no deal’ Brexit, is
whether or not they show an interest in supporting our “Defend Brexit”
case.
To my knowledge Jacob Rees-Mogg has been
spoken to about the Brexit case by at least three people, as well as, of
course, being general knowledge amongst Conservative MPs because of the House
of Commons Library’s briefing. It wasn’t
therefore a surprise to see in this video clip that Jacob Rees-Mogg knew about
the case >>>
What was interesting, however, was to see
somebody who is not a lawyer trying to make out that he had some information
about the case’s chances of success!
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s comments were particularly
disingenuous when you consider that he was very happy to talk about his
colleague, Bill Cash’s case, which has never actually been a case at all, let
alone had any merit, since no proceedings have actually even been issued and it
would now be too late to do so.
So his answer isn’t in fact about whether our
case has any merits, his answer is instead indicative of what the Conservative
Government under him and Boris are thinking of doing with the case.
If the real intention of Boris’ Government was
to get the UK Out of the EU with ‘no deal’, then not defending our case would
be the easiest way to achieve that for them.
It would not then be possible for Parliament to block either the case or
thus Brexit. It would also not be
possible for Parliament to legislate to prevent it. It would simply be declared as the law by the
court, at which point there would be nothing that any of the Remainer
Establishment figures could do about it.
If that outcome does not suit Boris’ Government that must be because
they have some other agenda.
My suspicion is that their agenda is simply to
bolster the Conservative Party’s position in a General Election to be
announced. This could be perhaps in
October to take place in November when the clocks have gone back. It is then dark when people return from work.
This will dramatically reduce Labour’s advantage in having an estimated a quarter
of a million canvassers.
I may be proved wrong, but if so, I would
expect the case to be given a fair wind by Government.
Let us see what happens!
I am hoping they use yr case as you have worked to hard for it to be dismissed , as soon as they get a whiff of some one trying to stop it like the 60 cons think u stand a better chance of it being heard all this money spending just get it done use the case .
ReplyDeleteI admire your tenacity Robin but our politicians are nothing better than a bunch of weasels.
ReplyDeleteThat is surely just an insult to weasels, one of the most beautiful and friendly inhabitants of these isles; certainly more so than any of our antiquated MPs. Could your comment, perhaps, be nothing more than mustelaphobia?
DeleteShrewd points! They must be challenged on that.
ReplyDeleteHmm..complicated...or not?
ReplyDeleteRobin, why does the government's civil appeals case tracker indicate that they are still waiting for documents from the claimant following their request dated the 16th July? Their web page was updated on the 2nd August. Are they using this to delay issuing a hearing date? Here's the URL for their case tracker:
ReplyDeletehttp://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/getDetail.do?case_id=20191534
Good question.
DeleteI will forward link to Robin..
You have very valid points in your comments, but perhaps another way of looking at the government's approach to the case is that it may be used as part of the government's leverage to get an acceptable deal from the EU.
ReplyDeleteNothing to compare with a threat to concede the case, which may well happen anyway closer to 31 October.
Why can't we send the case to a jury of the country and forget the corrupt judges. The miller case has already said an act of parliament is superior to an act of state. So the facts need to be put in front of a jury, according to English law. We can ask for volunteers to hear the facts and select twelve by lot to judge on the facts. As the law of procedure is declared in the magna carat.
ReplyDeleteIt would be better to have it judged on its legal merits than before a jury of people who by chance maybe biased to remain
DeleteSurely most of the judges are biased towards remain? Technically if anyone is giving their allegiance to the EU, then they could not be a member of a properly formed jury, it has to be formed by "lawful" members of the public. Constitutionally all those who are giving their allegiance to foreign powers, are no longer subjects of the realm, they have deserted their country.
DeleteBe careful Robin (and friends), for they feel threatened ...
ReplyDeleteWas Jeff Taylor's ebullient announcement that Boris as First Respondent could cancel the State's defence of your case ( and was on the point of doing so) premature? I was filled with hope!
ReplyDeleteBut I was also concerned to see JRM avoid a direct answer and rush away. First time he has been evasive. So is the CP more important than a clean clear Brexit?