In England we are constantly told by ‘authority’ (a nebulous term covering everything from a Civil Service mandarin to a traffic warden) to respect the rule of law, a diktat predicated upon the separation of powers, which is given to include the judiciary. Judges claim to exercise their authority on the basis of evidence only, without fear or favour.
So, there are those of us who might find it rather surprising that a ruling by the High Court in England that the recent prorogation (suspension) of Parliament for a defined period was lawful, should be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court not by a majority decision among its eleven judges, but by a unanimous decision. What happened?
What would influence eleven judges to make a decision so cleanly in a case without precedent which directly involved them in the political process, and from whence would that influence come, if not from political pressure?
No, please don’t insult me by suggesting I am not privy to the niceties of this decision – I am all too well aware that no matter how much sophistry and cant is plastered over the top of it the simple message on the wall remains the same: does the ‘Establishment’ accept the fundamental principle of democracy or does it not?
The case against the Queen’s consent to prorogation was brought by one Gina Miller, whose claims to financing the legal costs from her own resources may or may not be true. Having ‘won’ this case she today threatened to seek litigation again if the Government acts in a way that is, in her opinion, outside the law. Which could arguably constitute a coup, could it not? Can it be the real power in this country now rests with Gina Miller?
Whether or not you agree with the verdict of the Supreme Court, or the manner in which the decision was reached, the outcome is a country without an effective government, needing an election that none of the Opposition parties will agree to call. Power has been switched to the minority parties by a device which, know it or know it not, is regarded with horror by almost the entire electorate.
The Brexit issue is, of course, at the heart of this. The authors of the confusion are a small group financiers riding the federal wagon in the sewers of Europe – however, this ‘model’ for overturning the elected wishes of the people is not unique to the UK, but spreads itself throughout the Western world.
It is no longer the job of the politician to reflect the wishes of those who voted for him – not if it conflicts with his private interests or those of his influential friends, or if he simply doesn’t like it. Boris Johnson is lampooned and insulted personally on a daily basis, usually for his reputed ‘dishonesty’, which really refers to his journalistic efforts. Yet he is the only person in the whole of the British ruling class with a true social conscience, and he is the only person prepared to lay his reputation on the line and actually get things done!
The comment ‘I have lived too long’ is frequently traded among those of similar vintage to myself. I’m beginning to believe it.