The rule of law has become the rule of lawyers
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-rule-of-law-has-become-the-rule-of-lawyers/
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/author/charles-moore/>Charles
Moore 28 September 2019
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=179297#179297
Is that diamond-studded silver spider, that Lady
Hale wore, her badge of office? If so, it is
appropriate. The Supreme Court has decided to tie
up the government in a web of legal reasoning so
tight that it can no longer govern. In his
dissenting judgment in the earlier Miller case
about Article 50, Lord Reed warned that ‘the
legalisation of political issues is not always
appropriate and may be fraught with risk, not
least for the judiciary’. Unusually as if to
compensate for these words his name was joined
with that of Lady Hale in giving the judgment on
Tuesday. He would have done better to heed his
own earlier warning. They are in deep now.
***
The very first paragraph of the judgment gives
the Supreme Court’s game away. This is not about
‘when and on what terms’ we leave the European
Union, it says, but it goes on to declare the
case is ‘a one-off’, in circumstances which are
‘unlikely ever to appear again’. It is the
court’s way of saying that it is justified in
tailoring the law in response to its perception
of a political crisis. This is developed in
paragraph 50: ‘A decision to prorogue parliament
(or to advise the monarch to prorogue parliament)
will be unlawful if the prorogation has the
effect of frustrating or preventing, without
reasonable justification, the ability of
parliament to carry out its constitutional
functions as a legislature and as the body
responsible for the supervision of the
executive.’ In these words, the court leaps from
rightly policing the borders of the prerogative
to deciding whether some exercise of the
prerogative is reasonably justified. The word
‘prerogative’ thus becomes meaningless. The judges have decided they own it.
***
In doing so, they are turning themselves into our
constitutional court, which they aren’t. If that
is what they want, they must accept the terms
which go with it, as in the United States. The
public must have a right to know their private
opinions their religious beliefs, for example,
or how they voted in the Brexit referendum. They
must also be selected and vetted by more open
means. It’s Hale and farewell to the court’s
reputation for impartiality and the respect that
goes with it. Having failed to understand the
doctrine of the Crown in parliament, and decided
instead that we live in the 17th century under
the dictatorial power of the King (now in the
shape of Boris Johnson), they have appointed
themselves arbiters of the actions normally
reserved to government and parliament. As Boris
tries to implement the largest popular vote for
anything in British history, voters may struggle
to see how he resembles King Charles I.
***
As one reads on through the Supreme Court
judgment, its prosecuting tone becomes more
insistent. It sweeps aside, almost without
consideration, the earlier judgment of the
Divisional Court. Did Mr Johnson’s action in
proroguing frustrate the constitutional role of
parliament? ‘Of course it did,’ it exclaims in
paragraph 56, short-circuiting the sober argument
it should itself make out. Although Lady Hale and
Lord Reed protest that they are passing no
judgment on the motives of the Prime Minister
(paragraph 58), they say three paragraphs later
that it is ‘impossible for us to conclude… that
there was any reason let alone a good reason’
for Boris to have advised the Queen as he did.
That is insinuating Ciceronian rhetoric not
judicial, and not judicious. ‘It follows that the
decision was unlawful,’ they continue, thus
creating a new doctrine that the exercise of the
prerogative requires, by law, that its reasons be
good to the satisfaction of the court.
***
Our law sometimes deploys the concept of the
‘reasonable person’. Lord Sumption now says that
the judges’ ‘revolutionary’ act was justified
because if something is ‘sufficiently shocking,
you must expect people to change the ground
rules’. But would the reasonable person really
think, as these judges do, that proroguing
parliament for a few more working days than would
have been the case if it had risen only for the
party conferences has ‘such an extreme effect on
the fundamentals of our democracy’? Might the
reasonable person not have noticed that, even
before prorogation, parliament was doing
extremely little other than saying ever more
noisily what it had said before? Now they’re at
it again. The truly shocking change of the ground
rules, from which all else flows, was Mr
Speaker’s decision to remove government control of the business of the House.
***
In 2014, the think-tank Policy Exchange was
attacked for setting up its Judicial Power
Project. It was ‘irrelevant and niche’, said its
critics. In fact, Policy Exchange and the unit’s
outstanding head, Professor Richard Ekins, had
identified and today continue to monitor one of
the most insidious changes in the West which
British conservatives had badly neglected the
way the noble concept of the rule of law has been
degraded into something quite different, the rule
of lawyers. It is a prime example of what
economists call ‘producer capture’. The victims are the voters.
***
So what should Boris Johnson do now? Obviously
the law officers are twitchy. They defer to
judges and their later careers may depend on
them. But as the judges make much of not
impugning Boris’s motives before going on to
savage him, he is perfectly entitled to employ
the same technique. Boris can say that the
Supreme Court and Mr Speaker between them have
contrived, in the name of democracy, an
arrangement by which democracy cannot operate.
Parliament has no confidence in the government,
but refuses to vote to say so because that would
provoke the election which Labour and Remainers
fear. I come back to that spider’s web. Boris
resembles Sam Gamgee in Shelob’s lair, and only
he, armed with Frodo’s dagger Sting, can cut
their way out. For Sting, read a general election.
NB please do reply with remove as the subject or
first line if you do not wish to recieve further emails - thanks
'From South America, where payment must be made
with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made
a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of
the brightest Jewish businessmen into a
participatory role in the development of many of
its corporations, and many of these Jews share
their prosperity most generously with Israel. If
their proposals are sound, they are even provided
with a specially dispensed venture capital fund.
I spoke with one Jewish businessmen in Hartford,
Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown
several years before our conversation, but with
Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more
than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the
community with a certain share of his profits
earmarked as always for his venture capital
benefactors. This has taken place in many other
instances across America and demonstrates how
Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary
commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful
nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much “literature.”
So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish
participation in Bormann companies that when
Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv
to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the
Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires.
Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities
in no uncertain terms that this must never happen
again because a repetition would permanently
rupture relations with the Germans of Latin
America, as well as with the Bormann
organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish
money to Israel. It never happened again, and the
pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of
these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an
Argentinian safe haven, protected by the most
efficient German infrastructure in history as
well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being.'
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>http<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>://spitfirelist.com/books/martin-bormann-nazi-in-exile/
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk
http://www.bilderberg.org
http://www.tlio.org.uk
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16
You can donate to support Tony's work here http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm
TG mobile +44 7786 952037
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pepis/7.0.1.0.1.20190929132413.006f12a0%40cultureshop.org.uk.