Court Ruling Only Delays Brexit

The British High Court ruling that the U.K. government cannot leave the European Union without letting its Parliament vote on the matter, can only delay Brexit, not stop it.

The court ruling was only possible because Britain lacks a codified constitution—a significant flaw which invites constitutional ping-pong battles such as the new ruling.

court-ruling

The decision will be appealed by the Government, and that motion will be heard early in December. At that time, the challenge may even be squashed, making the current hoopla of passing interest only.

The court ruling came about because Britain—like New Zealand and Israel—is in the unique position of not having a defined constitution, relying instead on an “unwritten code” made up of Acts of Parliament, court judgments, and conventions.

The cardinal principle of Britain’s unwritten constitution is that Parliament is sovereign in the sense of being the supreme legislative body.

Since there is no documentary constitution containing laws that are fundamental in status and superior to ordinary Acts of Parliament, the courts may only interpret parliamentary statutes.

Prime Minister Theresa May had announced that she would use the centuries-old powers known as “royal prerogative” to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty to start the withdrawal process.

These powers—held in ancient times by the monarch—are nowadays used by politicians to enable decisions about international treaties and other issues to be made without a vote of Parliament.

However, the lack of a written constitution means that there is no clear definition of how far these powers extend—and this lack of clarity is the main reason for the new ruling.

The court case was brought by a number of individuals who supported the “remain” campaign, who argued that leaving the EU would remove rights such as free movement within the bloc, and that such a move could not be undertaken without the approval of Parliament.

The judges agreed, ruling that “the Government does not have the power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the U.K. to withdraw from the European Union.”





The judges backed the claimants’ argument that the Government could not remove Britons’ legal rights “unless Parliament had conferred upon the Government to do so.”

The government lawyers had argued that the powers to leave the EU without a parliamentary vote are contained within the parameters of the 1972 European Communities Act.

This argument was however specifically rejected by the court, which ruled that there was “nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it”—a ruling which is completely correct—and that the government’s arguments are “contrary to fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament.”

Contrary to much coverage in the controlled media, the court’s ruling was actually legally valid.

The legal principle before the court was that it is not possible for the government to undo statute law by a proclamation made in terms of a royal prerogative, thereby depriving large numbers of people in this country of statutory rights enacted by Parliament.

This fact makes the Government’s chances of winning the appeal small—unless another form of defense is though up in the interim.

However, No matter what the appeal decision might be, the safe route for the government would be to introduce a piece of primary legislation taking note of the fact that parliament itself called out the referendum, and that it was therefore obliged to implement its outcome.

There will be few Members of Parliament who would dare to be seen voting to block the referendum’s outcome, and in the unlikely case that a bill would not pass Parliament, then the worst case scenario, until after the next general election in 2020—unless a new one is called out earlier.

In that election, sitting Members of Parliament seen to be directly blocking the expressed will of the voters are likely to be replaced, making the issue moot once again.

The refusal of the “remain” camp to accept the outcome of the referendum, is however, of greater significance that the new court decision.

It is a typically leftist attitude which supports democracy when the result agrees with the leftist world view, and then virulently opposes democracy when the result is not the lefts’ liking.


Recommended For You

19 Comments

  1. This British court case was brought by a Third World Invader, a woman whose wealthy family emigrated to Guyana from India, then she married British millionaire “Mr. Hedge Fund” and used his surname to hide her Third World origins. “Gina Miller’s” court case was supported by a Portuguese hairdresser (I kid you not), and the whole weight of the Globalist EU Mafia. So this millionaire Third World Invader has shown her “gratitude” to the British people who welcomed her by trying to derail British democracy, here in the Land of the Magna Carta. Of course, the British government can ignore this egregious attempt by the judiciary branch to overturn democratic election results. It is not for any court to decide, nor for any court to claim jurisdiction over the democratic decision of the British people. It seems that the NWO Globalists are trying to bring back the Tribal dream of “World Judocracy” = Government by Judges.

    1. Even more outrageous, the Globalist Mafia are now trying to twist the Magna Carta into a support for their open defiance of the people, by claiming the Magna Carta made Parliament “supreme”, and the people must obey the “will of Parliament”. The Magna Carta is a unique contract between the Monarch and the People, NOT PARLIAMENT, which didn’t even exist when the Magna Carta was signed. It has nothing to do with Parliament.

      1. We will never be free,until we purge these lands of traitors and oligarch’s who rule over us.
        The houses of traitor’s should be burned on bonfire night?
        They will never succumb to the will of the people,unless brute force is used. They lie,cheat ,deceive with the help of the lying “jew” media.
        Because we had the sense to vote brexit,which in their wildest dreams wouldn’t happen and when it did we seen their true colours come shining through of these imposters.

        They insult us.. call us… stupid,ignorant,racist working class idiot’s they try every trick in the book to browbeat us? But we shall not surrender!!
        Ukip has been got at,they were a massive threat to the establishment,since Farage stepped aside I think his timing leaves alot to be desired? The only one opposition party that would ensure brexit happened has been disarmed and now is in meltdown.
        We need to march for “freedom”,in our millions!! Because it will be taken from us.

        1. Rainstorm, you are quite right with what you say in your first paragraph. However Ukip, although instrumental in achieving the Brexit vote, would only have delayed the inevitable demographic shift towards a White minority situation.
          Ukip were not and are not racial Nationalists. Ukip were/are the establishment safety valve. Nigel Farage said this himself when he warned of the ‘far right’.
          What is required from us in order for us to survive is a complete change in our world view. This cannot be achieved by playing in the various political sand boxes provided for us by those who seek only our iradication by increments.
          There are still too many folk who begin sentences “i’m not a racist but…” and other terminology from the Marxist lexicon, not realising themselves that by doing so their minds are still firmly imprisoned by enemy terminology and thus useless in any effort to effect a real change.
          Societal collapse is happening and will continue to slide into third world conditions and eventually into a 4GW situation.
          When we arrive at that situation we must be prepared.
          We must create now, within the current political and social mileau, the resources that will help us to take control of that situation and move ourselves into the position of Sovereign power holders.

  2. NEVER RETREAT NEVER SURRENDER ONE BATTLE DOES NOT MAKE A WAR !!!!!!!HE WHO FIGHTS AND WALKS AWAY LIVES TOO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY!!!!!!!! Watching and waiting watch this space!!!!!!!!!!

  3. I note similarities to Lord Dubs, who we welcomed as a child refugee…

    Now he “works” for Brussels to bring in six foot children, with the long-term aim of destroying this country. …The Coudenhave-Kalergi plan flourishes….

    1. Just unbelievable. However they are enraging us ‘little people’, adding weight to our cause, grist to our mill. ~We must ensure they never win.

  4. As the writer says, Britain has no written constitution, and the Queen in Parliament is, supposedly, the supreme executive of the land.
    But, matters concerning the rules of parliament itself – ‘who governs the governors’ – are a contentious issue, the general notion is that the idea of ‘form and precedent’ police parliament in a way such that parliament does not unilaterally aggrandize its powers and becomes a dictatorship.
    Now, referenda are not a usual constitutional device in the UK precisely because of the doctrine of ‘parliamentary supremacy’ (incidentally, the EU which a majority of sitting MPs support subordinates parliament).
    But, on this specific occasion the referendum was on a profoundly constitutional matter itself, namely, the relationship between the British state and the British people itself – that is the nature of the state itself. Ultimately, power is said to belong to ‘the people’. Therefore any constitutional arrangement which seeks to fundamentally alter the foundation of the British state – that is handing supreme power to those whom are not elected by the British people – morally, at least, requires the consent and approval of the British people.

  5. The main reason I am anti EU is that the EU is the main driver of the third world invasion and destruction of European peoples in their ancient homelands.
    I could live with a white nationalist EU.

  6. Bramble, well said, the last words in the article speak volumes of how the likes of the left operate. When Kinnock, he of ‘U-Turn’ expertise, campaigned across the whole of Wales to stop this country joining the Common Market in 1975 accepted the decision of the people, along with Corbyn and the late Wedgwood-Benn, why did they not demand a second referendum? Democracy is finished when an outsider can get their personal beliefs to over-ride the will of the people. Parliament ruled that “THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE”, and the people did. The whole of the Welsh Valleys voted ‘LEAVE’, so any MP down there including the idiot Smith, who wants to prevent this country leaving the EU, should now be de-selected, and that is the only way they can be sacked, unfortunately. Sadly, however, the area is so rock-solid Labour/Socialist that no-one will do anything. Ironically, tomorrow is November 5th, and the reason for the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ could well be justified if Brexit is blocked.

  7. I think MPs will push this through because they know it’s political suicide to go against the electorate, I worry more about the House of Lords who are unelected so don’t care in that respect.

    There is talk from members of the House of Lords that they will be looking to impose amendments, so what will those amendments be?

    1. And if/when they push it through, then what…? We are then still in the exact same position as before the referendum.
      Without repatriation of non Europeans from European soil, Europeans still become the minority. By 2060 in the UK according to some figures. It is the same eventually, cattle going to slaughter, but with blinkers on.

  8. Is it not a bit late in the day to ibe trumpeting the sovereignty of parliament when the creatures that infest it have been giving this same sovereignty away for over forty years!

    1. Not many people realise what MP’s gave away just two years ago…google

      “UK parliament effectively comes to an end ”

      Those MP’s who are suddenly so interested in the sovereignty of Parliament are now working for Brussels to thwart the will of the British people…Clegg is one of them…

      As a former MEP, he has to be seen to be supporting the EU at every opportunity or he will lose his fat EU pension.

      What a man, to put his pension before his country!

    1. The Magna Carta says that the People may petition the Monarch, and that their petition must be submitted to the Monarch by HEREDITARY PEERS OF THE REALM. If the Monarch fails to respond after 40 days, the People have the right to CHOOSE A NEW MONARCH. That is why the Fabian Globalists got rid of the Hereditary Peers of the Realm in the House of Lords, replacing them with politically-appointed numpties who do as they’re told, in an attempt to subvert the Magna Carta. But they forgot that neither Parliament nor the House of Lords existed when the Magna Carta was signed, so they are entirely IRRELEVANT. The Hereditary Peers of the Realm do not have to be members of the House of Lords in order to submit the People’s Petition to the Monarch. That is the great beauty of the Magna Carta—the People are Supreme, not Parliament, and not the Monarch.

  9. The group under, ‘call me Dave’ produced the legislation for the June Referendum. It was he/they who planted the self-destruct bomb tucked away in its paragraphs. Weasel words such as, “Advisory” Referendum is a lawyers wet dream. If anyone is to blame for this fiasco it is Cameron. No wonder he made a quick exit before any direct responsibility was attached to him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.