Ronal Olden

All in all, the Supreme Court judgement on Brexit is, politically, for the best. The Brexit legislation is now near certain to pass through both Houses of Parliament within the next three weeks, and if it doesn’t there would be a General Election in April or May and both the Labour Party and/or the House of Lords would be obliterated for good. That fall-back position in itself might be a good thing.

In fact the way in which the judgement has been constructed now makes it quite easy for the Government to get its way. Perhaps, in the interest of a quiet life, that’s what the Court secretly intended.

I will return to this judgement in a more detailed Article in a week or two. But I would like to offer an early observation arising from this (near) Constitutional fiasco, which demonstrates how hopelessly inadequate our ‘unwritten Constitution’ is. The incident reveals that the ‘Constitution’ is not merely ‘unwritten’, but appears not to exist at all, and operates wholly on the whim of judges. And this malevolent characteristic is intrinsic to much of our legal system, where even junior and casual judges are afforded discretion to do as they like regardless of how ignorant of the relevant law (assuming any such law exists at all), or prejudiced, they are.

Anyone who is willing to spend the time reading this judgement will see how chaotic and inconsistent are the opinions of the 11 Supreme Court judges. And anyone who read the original shambolic High Court judgement, which appeared to miss completely, some points that have now been addressed, will already have been flabbergasted.

Yet our Rights and Freedoms depend solely upon the ‘arbitrary’ decisions upon which judges like this arrive. Their decisions, can properly be described as ‘arbitrary’. Judges of course prefer the term ‘discretion’.

Despite the fact these 11 Supreme Court judges, sitting together, heard the same case in law and have access to copies of the same Legal Statutes and ‘authorities’, they arrived at a variety of diametrically opposing opinions. ‘Law’ let alone fundamental Constitutional principles like this, is supposed to be based on ‘certainty’.

If 11 Supreme Court judges cannot agree upon the simple question as to whom, in the UK, can invoke the stated terms of a prominent provision in an International Treaty, which was itself approved by Parliament and upon which, Parliament itself, delegated to the British people the decision to invoke, the law is by definition ‘arbitrary’. It depends solely upon the unpredictable vote of the judges.

Assuming that some or all of the judges concerned are not themselves dismissed as ‘dishonest’ or ‘thick as two short planks’, it is quite plain that something is wrong with the way in which the Constitution is framed.

Arbitrary ‘Rule by Judges’

The judges arrived at their Brexit outcome by 8 votes to 3. Commonly however, only 3, or perhaps 5, of the 11 Supreme Court judiciary sit in proceedings, and they determine VERY SERIOUS matters relating our Human Rights and Freedoms. When they consider matters like this they determine the very nature of each individual’s existence in the World. For practical purposes they achieve the status of ‘Gods on Earth’. Collectively they have powers historically denied to any properly anointed King of England.

Readers however will notice that determination of our fundamental Rights depends not merely on the arbitrary opinion of each judge, but on who amongst of the 11 judges are actually sitting in the case. Whether or not a case can actually go to the Supreme Court in the first place, is determined by ONE judge alone.

 If the usual 3 or 5 judges had sat in this case the judgement COULD have gone the other way with no difference whatsoever in a single detail of the actual case law in front of them. That is not ‘Freedom under the Rule of Law’. It is ‘Serfdom under the whim of judges’.

 The only consistent and coherent part of this judgement is the unanimous verdict to the effect that the ‘Devolved Assemblies’ (i.e. glorified local authorities), do not each have its own independent power to veto leaving the EU. Why it was necessary for 11 Supreme Court judges to even consider this bizarre assertion is a mystery. The Court Usher could have worked out the answer, and would have replied ‘obviously not’.

 There is even a passage in this judgement (para 163) where Lord Reed, one of the 3 dissenting judges (who actually supports the Government’s position), seems to think that invoking Article 50 ‘merely starts a negotiating process with a view to arriving at a withdrawal agreement’. I’m the last person to agree with Gina Miller, but anyone who’s looked at the few lines which comprise Article 50, and its associated provisions, can see that this assertion is completely factually wrong.

Lord Reed appears unaware, that invoking Article 50 IRREVOCABLY surrenders the UK’s Treaty Rights to remain in the EU, and the other members’ obligations to let us stay. Unless all the members subsequently vote unanimously, to let us Remain indefinitely, and regardless of whether or there is any ‘withdrawal agreement’ in place, we Leave two years after sending the Article 50 letter. This fact is common knowledge and is te very reason why invoking Article 50 is so contentious. If all it involved was Theresa May telling the EU we wish to negotiate some indeterminate ‘withdrawal agreement’ no one would care one way of the other. It could all be determined later.

But, as the High Court itself stated, and which the Supreme Court does not contradict, Article 50 is irrevocable even if the EU did allow us to Remain, and the Government wished to do so, after we’ve invoked it. This error alone indicates that the judge concerned should on this point at least, have supported Gina Miller and not the Government.

The idea that the UK’s legal and ‘Constitutional’ (sic) apparatus is compatible with the minimum standard required by a democratic nation, is laughable. To arrive at decisions of law like this, we might just as well dispense with judges altogether, and have a TV debate followed by a randomly selected ‘phone in poll’. The arrangement would at least offer the benefit of reflecting the public’s own prejudices, as opposed to the kaleidoscope of apparently random observations of a few judges.

Alternatively of course, we might, like any normal country, simply write down on paper a proper Constitution, and leave Senior judges to determine points of law which for one reason or another could not have been foreseen when the Constitution was framed.

The question of who can, and who cannot, invoke the most important single stated provision of an International Treaty, might well be a question unforeseeable to the vast army of hugely paid, lazy and incompetent lawyers involved in these things, but to the man in the street the question is an obvious one to which to provide advance guidance.

Uksc 2016 0196 Judgment


  1. You are suggesting that this is Judge made law? How unusual! And a characteristic of many legal opinions in places like the US and Australia.
    This needs to be treated brutally in all of these administrations. And do not think that, if you succeed in getting a written constitution, that it will slow these “law-fare” activists down. Look at the “imputed” cases in analyses of the Constitution of Australia. Some of the “imputed” rights in Australia have been necessary in updating an (circa) 1898 Australian document, but the process just encourages the activist lawyers in the Australian High Court to try to make their obsessions part of the “constitution”. Even if the UK succeeds in getting a written constitution, the effort to avoid judge made law never ends.
    In passing, I am amused about the many times I have been “put down” by British commentators boosting the concept (and value) of an “unwritten” constitution …
    Maybe not so much now?

  2. ‘Judge Made Law’, is, in itself bad enough.

    But sometimes it’s inevitable, because written law can’t possibly cater for every eventuality in every circumstance. But if we write something down there’s at least some chance there’ll an element some consistent ‘Rule of Law’. The way things are at the moment, not only do we have Law invented from scratch by Judges, but they change it, as an when it takes their fancy.

    Here’s an example to watch out for. The logical conclusion of this Brexit judgement is that if Scotland votes for Independence in a Referendum, then Westminster will still need to repeal the Act of Union before Scotland would cease to be in the UK. That of course would have been obvious anyway. The United Kingdom is solely a creature of the Act of Union itself.

    But what if Westminster voted NO, perhaps because of the terms Sturgeon was demanding or because they won’t pay us their share of the UK National Debt, or take their Scottish Citizens back over the border, (etc etc)? And what if Westminster insisted that Scotland could only leave the UK if the Shetland Islanders were allowed to decide whether they, (and their oil) wished to Remain, which, quite possibly they might prefer.

    Scotland would have no internationally recognised territorial definition. What we now call ‘Scotland’ is solely the bits of the British Isles, which which Westminster has chosen (for existing administrative purposes) to be administered by Holyrood. But Holyrood, and its’ devolved jurisdiction, are creations of the United Kingdom. So in the event of Independence, Westminster would have to legislate to describe exactly what territories were actually leaving the UK.

    Needless to say however, in the unlikely event that Scotland does Vote for Independence, Sturgeon will announce that it’s nothing to do with Westminster, let any of the other Devolved Assemblies any more, and that whatever she defines as ‘Scotland’, becomes Independent at any date of it’s own choosing, on whatever terms it likes, whenever the SNP says it does. Or even, if (for example), owing to imminent financial catastrophe, it chickens out, Scotland would be entitled to choose to stay in, or even, at a future date rejoin, the UK after all.

    The ‘wishes of the Scottish People’ must, (as we know), always be ‘respected’ and the rest of us can just ‘get stuffed’.

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court would say about that. I bet they’d arrive at a different judgement to this one. And, owing to our lack of a Constitution they could base it upon whatever rubbish they chose to invent.

  3. One small point: You state; “If all it involved was Theresa May telling the EU we wish to negotiate some indeterminate ‘withdrawal agreement’ no one would care one way of the other.”
    But you quote Lord Reed thus:
    “Lord Reed, one of the 3 dissenting judges (who actually supports the Government’s position), seems to think that invoking Article 50 ‘merely starts a negotiating process with a view to arriving at a withdrawal agreement’.”
    Lord Reed said “arriving at” a withdrawal agreement”, not ” negotiating” a withdrawal agreement.
    Not quite the same thing methinks?

  4. I think you are all making it more complicated that it needs to be.

    Gina Miller and her ******* lawyers were very eloquent but wrong, Deliberately.

    Outside the Court and very publicly!! Gina Miller and her lawyers repeated the old lie that we do not have a written constitution. They do this for the simple reason that IF there is no higher authority, i.e constitutional law to control what they do then politicians can do as they please.

    She also said Parliament, i.e the House of Commons is supreme and it can give us rights and take them away!!.(just like any other dictatorship). As you know we do have a written constitution. Magna Carta,1215, Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act 1688, Act of Settlement 1701. It is just not in one document as in the USA since our constitution evolved over centuries to deal with problems empirically as they arose

    .All these above-mentioned Acts or Bills were DISREGARDED by Heath to take us into the EU because he could claim that he had the “will of the people” through the majority he acquired. I explain why that is a dangerous fiction in my website no one seems to bother to read it??links down??(contact me via

    WE in our ignorance, not understanding how the party system works allowed these laws to be disregarded. I remember the hard graft we put in (before the internet) to obtain 1/2 million signatures to petition the Queen to stop Heath. It was disregarded because the PARTY SYSTEM says Parliament .i.e. the government is supreme and the Monarch, the people’s last line of neutralised and the Coronation Oath law with it!!! We play party politics which allows the government to do as it wishes at our peril. this is why UKIP is a fraud also. We can make a start to stopping it by refusing to vote for any party and only support a constitutional independent..

    This brings me back to the Court case. Various MPs in Parliament are now going to do their best to complicate the issues. Since we entered the EC/EU contrary to English law we are not lawfully in the EU and should walk otherwise we are also going to get another hundred thousand migrants.

    • 1) How is the monarch ‘neutralised’? Nothing takes effect without her signature. 2) Why do you describe UKIP as a fraud? (considering that if it weren’t for UKIP, and specifically for Nigel Farage, we would never have had this referendum). 3) Refusing to vote for any party is exatcly what these people want. Then they can carry an election with fewer votes.

  5. Hello Hugo. 1)The monarch is neutralised because the “convention” non-legal and therefore illegal practice is that the Monarch must act on the advice of the party leader. If the Queen had refused to sign there would have been all hell let loose from the MSM, the political parties and the Republicans That she did not may be partly due to this and the fact that Queen Mary had impressed upon Elizabeth her the duty to preserve the monarchy. Instead of her saying”Mr Heath, not only do the laws of England prohibit the transfer of power to a foreign power but in 1953 I promised my people I would govern according to our laws and customs, therefore I cannot sign” she signed, presumably because she feared the backlash
    .2) UKIP is a fraud for two reasons. The attack on the UK and its nationhood was two fold. The EU and immigration. The most deadly part is the immigration and this started earlier than the EU attack because they had to introduce the immigrant slowly, well before the EU phase in 1970. UKIP pretends it will control immigration but only for the interests of business.Not because the cultural changes are already enormously damaging. Furthermore it outlaws discrimination in its constitution and this outlawing of discrimination comes down from the UN Charter of 1946?, via the EU anti-discrimination laws and into our legal system. If you are not allowed to discriminate and protect your territorial rights what have you left?
    ALSO, It is a political party and as such aids abets and condones the very mechanism which allowed Mr Heath to betray us, neutralises our constitutional laws of liberty and operates somewhere along the “revolutionary spectrum” like all the other parties in that you cannot opt out of any policy you do not like. When you vote you have to have the whole manifesto “package” and that is a totalitarian concept. Freedom may be defined as the “ability to accept or reject ONE policy at a time”. Put that definition against the “package” vote and what have you by loss of control. If you can’t say “I am not having this, I am opting out” and are free to do so you are a slave.
    A UKIP government inside the House of Commons would have exactly the same effect on the legal constitution as any other party would have.. It is that simple. Once you vote for any party you lose control. If you can’t control your government what have you got? Dictatorship, albeit “elective”. All I am saying is that UKIP emulate all those features. See my website. You have no real idea who they are, you just see them on the TV looking very smart and astute but you have no idea of the real character. Look at what happened to Diane James and then Steven Woolfe. And we are expected to hand over TOTAL power to these people on trust and then wonder why “they’re only in it for themselves”
    I had a discussion with a UKIP chap today and he admitted it wasn’t just UKIP which won the referendum though Farage did help enormously, but you see, when you understand that politics is a devious game and things aren’t always as they seem. Question: why when Farage lost Thanet and the matter of Tory expenses came out into the open did he just shrug his shoulders and walk away? Other goals in sight? When he was challenged by Andrew Brons in the EU Parliament (you tube)he admitted uKIP is not anti-immigration, though you could be easily fooled.

    Lastly, I am not suggesting you stop voting. Far from it. only an Independent candidate with the right constitutional knowledge can truly and faithfully represent his constituents because he has no party wiip to obey,no government to obey and he can deliberate freely on behalf of his constituents without being told how to vote. Try downloading “The Party System” by Belloc/Chesterton for free. Your vote for an Independent stays in his safe custody to be used wisely and carefully and does not disappear into the pockets of the governing party, never to be seen again. Please visit my website. It has been there 15 years.
    I nearly stood as an Independent at the 2015 election and what stopped me mainly was a good UKIP candidate. I did not want to split the crucial vote against the EU.Knowing what I now know about UKIP now I would not withdraw gain. There are other things I am not allowed to mention on this site.

    Best wishes.

    • Do I detect a contradiction in your first sentence? You say the ‘convention’ is that the monarch MUST act on the advice of the party leader (I thought it was ‘her ministers’). If it’s a convention, there is no compulsion. Even more so since you say the convention is illegal in the first place. There is certainly a case for arguing that the queen initially would have been following the wishes of her subjects. But there must have come a point somewhere along the line at which she should have said “This far and no further”. Id she the custodian of our constitution or is she a mere tourist attraction?
      And I think you are being unduly harsh on UKIP. I should declare an interest, having been a member since 1994. UKIP’s initial stated aim was to secure our withdrawal from the European Union “by parliamentary means, and parliamentary means alone”, in the words of Alan Sked. Then in 2001 Paul Sykes made a large donation on condition that UKIP fought for a referendum on our membership. I was initially supportive of a referendum on Maastricht, but by the 1997 election I was totally opposed, for the simple reason that I thought it could all go horribly wrong, and then it would all be over. For better or worse, however, UKIP did fight for, and utlimately secure, and then win, a referendum. I cannot detect anything ‘fraudulent’ in any of that. High risk maybe, but not fraud.
      I would be interested to know the basis for your claim that “UKIP pretends it will control immigration but only for the interests of business”. I don’t accept that to be the case at all. I believe I am correct in saying that UKIP would be compelled by law to prevent discrimination within its own ranks. In any case, it is not and never has been a White Supremacist organisation.
      I totally agree with you about political parties. I believe it would be much better for politicians to stand as independents, coming together in different ways on different issues. But I cannot see anything ‘fraudulent’ about forming a new political party to offer the voters the opportunity for the first time to vote for withdrawal from the EU.
      I do not believe Nigel Farage just “shrugged his shoulders and walked away” from the Tory expenses issue at Thanet. I believe there is an ongoing investigation into any wrongdoing.
      And yes, UKIP is not “anti-immigration”. It is in favour of controlled immigration.
      I am intrigued by the things you are “not allowed to mention” on this site. What would happen if you did so? Why not try it and see?

      • Best not try it. Our rules are clear in general, but vague in practice. You are welcome to say anything you like, so long as it doesn’t seem likely to get us into trouble with the authorities. If whatever hasn’t been said falls into this class, we’d rather it remained unsaid.

        This rule is entirely reasonable – so reasonable, indeed, that we enforced it for the first time in 2010, and haven’t needed to since. Yes, I think I know what hasn’t been said, and am grateful that it hasn’t.

      • Ok Hugo.Apologies for any typo errors but text size gives me trouble
        Let me declare an interest also. I too voted UKIP at last election, reluctantly since as I said there was a good UKIP man there.
        Sorry,bit sloppy when I said “leader” but it amounts to the same thing as the PM is the only one who has a regular audience as far as I know.
        Because the party politicians have cleverly ignored constitutional law they have had to devise a system of “conventions” or practices along which to operate convenient to their system. These conventions are very strong, based on the notion that the “people” have elected the government and therefore everyone must obey government diktat. That is why I say “there is no power legal or regal” to hold the government in check.
        I would be the first to admit that it took years for the penny to drop and the PTB have a vested interest in continuing the present “democratic”system. Again. see my website. The whole system is corrupt however innocently one participates. I cna’t spend for ever re-stating y ae. It is on the site Hugo and if you use my e-mail address i will send you some more modern updates.
        As regards “controlling immigration”. It is not a case of White supremacy or hate ofother it is a simple case of our Common Law and constitution do not work i an increasingly divided society where some of the invaders refuse to accept our laws anyway!! You can easily deduce, my dear Watson, from their anti-discrimination stance that those who come in on a points system will be coming in to serve a purpose. As their current immigration spokesman John Bickley told me in a reply e-mail (remember Steven Woolfe fell by the wayside ( another minus of the party system)

        “UKIP doesn’t see immigration as an ethnicity or diversity issue, it’s all about having a controlled immigration system that ads value to the British “economy”!!!! AND

        “UKIP believes it has to be in the tens of thousands and be a non-discriminatory points-based system where your ETHNICITY & NATIONALITY IS IRRELEVANT(emphasis added by me), it’s what value you will bring to the economy”.

        The attack on the English nation state continues. I can find you endless Tory/Labour politicians woo say exactly the same. So where is the difference in this VITAL AREA in voting for UKIP? As a dedicated patriot who goes back to the 1970s battle against Heath I wish I were not the bearer of bad news, Hugo. Look at the UN Charter and Declaration of “Human Rights”, go into the EU Declaration on Human Rights in to the British Declaration and you realise who is really in charge and makes our laws and our politicians are terrified of them. They just want a quiet life. As for Nigel. he has more important things to do strutting on the world stage with Mr Trump
        Do get in touch by e-mail. regards

      • “I don’t accept that to be the case at all. I believe I am correct in saying that UKIP would be compelled by law to prevent discrimination within its own ranks. In any case, it is not and never has been a White Supremacist organisation.”

        It wouldn’t need to be, to be opposed to anti-discrimination laws; it could simply be white identitarian or separatist, although I will grant it is neither. That being said, I recall from past interviews that UKIP members are opposed to anti-discrimination laws more generally, e.g. in the workplace.

        So you are probably correct in what you say regarding discrimination within the party. I also suspect they don’t want to afford the media the opportunity to easily label them as ‘racist’.

  6. American here. I’m sorry to report this, but a written constitution is just as susceptible to strained reinterpretation as any statute. It all comes down to culture and the reverence of individuals for the principles that undergird any constitution (written, unwritten, or partially written). Our societies have come to a point where a large number of people have absolutely no reverence for those principles and would applaud their complete replacement by the tenants of their new secular-religion far more loudly than they presently applaud each of the myriad of acts that undermine those principles. I do not believe that we are primarily faced with a structural problem or a legal problem or a competency problem (although such problems exist). Instead, the penultimate problem we face is cultural, moral, and ideological. No restrictions, written, derived from precedent, or otherwise will stop our opponents where they can ignore or reinterpret them to the satisfaction of a large enough portion of the population to keep themselves out of danger.
    A constitution of any sort is an armistice agreement between conflicting parties. They say “crossing this or that line, infringing or usurping this or that longstanding convention, practice, or right will or historically has always has led to conflict and we’ve been at it long enough that the present state of affairs is unlikely to change in any significant way despite the blood and treasure expended in each instance that someone tries. So let’s settle all future conflicts according to these rules and all agree to act in unison against any party that violates these rules according to these predefined procedures.” That arrangement will hold for as long as people have wish and the means to hold it. It will break just as soon as one or the other of those conditions is no longer true. That is precisely the place we in the West are all headed. It is the reason England must remain a nation state if it is to survive with any degree of resemblance to the place it is now and has been in the past. Because all new-comers bring their own “unwritten constitutions,” forged in the fires of their own mother countries’ turbulent, and alien histories. But even this seemingly obvious and simple step is confounded by the zealots of the neo-liberal religion and legions of useful idiots they manage to mobilize towards their own nefarious ends. For the constitutions of England or America to be secured and faithfully respected, our societies must first rediscover and esteem our histories, traditions, and the values they evoke.
    Let us hope this Renaissance, which seems to have begun, is not too late in coming is vigorous and determined enough to deliver our civilization from its present crisis.

  7. thank you Maurice. you have proved my point. This is why UKIP is useless in this respect and NO DIFFERENT to the other main parties and is just a variation on the revolutionary spectrum in every other respect. Since immigration defines for ever who we are It all comes down to what the word “racist” means and why they are all so terrified of it. (small migrations over the past century could be absorbed
    Let me put it another way. do we in a so-called “democratic” society have the right to prefer quite naturally and peacefully(sic)to live amongst our own people (as said Winston Churchill) or do we have to agree to be FORCED to submit to this multi-racial ideology which is going to lead to civil war because there is no peaceful outcome possible, unless of course the English have entirely lost their bottle. I hate to quote Meryl Streep but she said recently “violence begets violence” and it does.
    I mentioned the words “democratic society” deliberately because this is where the clever trick resides. Politicians can often be heard to say “in this free and democratic society of ours” as if the two are automatically bedfellows. But in a truly free society, as I show on my website,we have the ability to “accept or reject ONE policy at a time” and reject something we do not agree with, like immigration, which is changing who we are for ever.(as it is designed to do as part of the UN -controlled New World Order) and act upon it. With that freedom to say “no I do not want this” and act upon it you the individual retain a degree of control over government. The trick is to get you/compel you to vote for a PARTY (rather than an INDEPENDENT) and the “package” on offer and your control has gone. That is why I say on my website “we are our own executioners” when we vote for any party. That is why UKIP is useless.

    I am NOT labelling all UKIPpers as bad, far from it, because as an old anti-marketeer going back to the 1970s I detest the EU as much as they but I am just desperate for them to understand why under the party system it is more of the same, cleverly disguised.(For Christ’s sake read my website) I doubt if many of the “leaders” realise this either as the “democratic” party system is so engrained in our consciousness. Our entry into the EC in Jan 1973 was merely(sic) the “elective dictatorship” “coming out” as an open USSR style dictatorship, visible to those who understood.

    IF we do come out of the EU do we really want to go back to more of the same “elective” version and the same UN controls over policy still in place except that they haven’t come down via the EU any more? Viewers of UK Column may be aware that the present Maybe government has apparently agreed to hand-over our nuclear weapons to EU control!!!

    • I’m afraid I still think you are being far too hard on UKIP, first branding it a fraud and now ‘useless’. Without UKIP, and Nigel Farage in particular, there would have been no referendum. Cameron only agreed to it because he was scared of losing seats to UKIP. What should UKIP have done, if not stand as a political party? Are you suggesting all of its candidates should have stood as independents? Many Ukippers (myself included) are against the idea of a referendum. If we had each stood as independents, we would have been hopelessly fragmented on this and many other issues, Cameron would have felt safe and there would have been no referendum.

  8. Ok. I respect your point of view. I acknowledge that the system is geared so that you rely on media coverage to push you forward, that is part of the trap or deal (no, this is not paranoia).to make sure you continue playing THEIR game . There were lots of other umbrella organisations making loud noises. The thing is Cameron didn’t think he would lose and the reason we won this time was because we had the internet and could talk to each other easily whereas in 1970 I assure you all we had was a table top printing press and endless trip to the party conferences!!
    I agree about referenda as they always leave the other half dis-satisfied as now. It is the same with the party system. You always leave the losers fed up and fed up with more than just one subject.

    This brings me back to Independents. Tough decision. In my humble opinion Independents are NOT and should not try to be mini ONE man political parties though all the issues will confront them too. Their role is first and foremost to represent their constituents and ONLY their constituents,to represent the freedom of their constituents against the compelling might of a Blair/Cameron government with a “majority” and the POWER that entails. They the government please and award lucrative (arms) contracts to their mates, make war, send you the bill and there is nothing you can do to stop them We found that out with Heath in 1970 because all power has side-stepped the rule of law and side-stepped control of a FREE House of Commons answerable only to the people. By electing a FREE House of Commons the people immediately restore that vital part of our constitution, the Separation of Powers, you no longer have an all-powerful executive which can make any law it likes. e.g. taking us into the EC and the mess that caused or imposing mass immigration upon us upon pain of imprisonment to those who resist and you no longer aid, abet and lend respectability to the ghastly system which has done this to us by joining in the power game on the premise that your motives are just and it is nothing to do with system itself. May I quote you (also on my website under “Warnings Past and Present”) the famous Edmund Burke whose plaque is on the wall in our local market town Malton N.Yorkshire where I nearly stood as an Independent but for UKIP. ” Whenever Parliament is persuaded to assume the offices of Executive government it will lose all the confidence, love and veneration which it has ever enjoyed whilst it was supposed to be the corrective and control on the acting powers of the State. This would be the event though its conduct in such a perversion of its functions would be tolerable just and moderate; but if it should be iniquitous, violent full of faction etc it would be considered as the most intolerable of all modes of tryanny”. Why? Because it has arrived by “democratic” means
    Finally” It must not be forgotten that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a Government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons” Prof. Wade in introduction to Dicey’s “Law of the Constitution 1960. To which you will say “Oh, we in UKIP are good guys, we won’t do that” You may not want to but you are dealing with a power system, which, once you have set in motion by your vote, is unstoppable, if your leaders turn out to be not what they seem. When did you last do a thorough survey of Paul Nuttall’s or anyone else’s background? best regards

Leave a Reply