The Rise and Rise of Gina Miller

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.

 

Do I Vote?

Do I vote on Thursday?

Here in the UK, I’m supposed to do my meagre part in electing a Member of the European Parliament, yet I know very little about the running or conduct of that institution.  In this, I am not alone.  This is anecdotal, but I am prepared to bet only a very small percentage of my fellow electorate understand who they are voting for, or what alliances they will follow.

In UK general elections we vote using a most-votes-wins system, commonly called ‘first past the post’.  The D’Hont proportional representation system used for EU elections asks us to vote for our chosen political party and the party then allocates seats to selected candidates according to their percentage of the total vote.  So although the candidates’ names will be listed for the party of my choice I will not directly influence the choice of candidate:  that will be up to the party.

Once elected, the candidates will ally themselves to party groups within the EP, groups with names quite different to their party label in the UK.  Members of the UK Brexit party, for example, are likely to align with the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) group.  Others may choose the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).   Some may select the Greens/EFA.  I know about the Greens, but EFA?  Well, that’s the European Free Alliance which is an association of smaller parties, one of which is called the European Pirates Party!!

A massive disconnect exists between the British system of personal accountability and this complex, remote, mildly patrician institution, separated from the UK by more than the English Channel’s defensive ditch.  Few will feel any connection to it, and fewer understand the gurglings in its politically bilious maw.  Its edicts are impersonal, then, and often ill-judged; its laws inappropriate to an island nation.  The British are ferociously independent, and they conspicuously resent anyone who tries to tell them what to do.

Thursday will add a further layer of perplexity.  Whomsoever wins will most probably be a member of the new Brexit Party or UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), and therefore opposed to the institution they are legally required to join.  If the received wisdom is to be believed, they will then be forced to surrender their seats when the UK finally leaves the EU on 29th October.

These new ‘Members’ or MEPs will by then have been in place for four months.  The election that put them there will have consumed £100,000,000 of taxpayers’ money, which is clearly a very expensive fiasco unless there is an underlying intent to abandon the whole Brexit project, ignore the democratic process and keep the UK in the Federalist Union.

It is easy to become paranoid in British politics at the moment.  Machiavellian ‘Remainers’ are busy in the woodwork, digging new tunnels and hatching new plots.  Ever since a referendum came in with a result they did not want to hear they have been feverishly scheming, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they produced another rabbit from their collective hat.

So, do I vote?  Do I contribute to this devious debacle, this deliberate travesty?

If I do, it will be to add my ‘cross’ to the millions of others our self-serving and arrogant ‘leaders’ will be compelled to find reasons to ignore.

Let’s Discuss Nationalism.

 

Particularly, let’s talk about Britain and its relationship, or its lack of a relationship, with the European Union.

Examine the validity of arguments for a United Europe, a ‘New World Order’ and its associated myths.  Internationalism is an ideology, not a possibility.  Discuss.

I am an English national who voted to leave the European Union.   This will not be a surprise, given my opening comments.  That I am an older voter is self-evident, that I am therefore by definition senile is a judgement I would hotly contest.

Am I nostalgic?   No.

Do I want to return to days of Empire and solitary glory?  No.

Before the Treaty of Maastricht and its love child, the Treaty of Amsterdam, I had hopes of becoming a ‘European’.  I declared myself as such – I gladly espoused the cause of world unity and I saw the promise of a slow, careful expansion of common interest as nations across the continent joined hands.

What happened?  A hijacking.  Overnight, the bureaucrats moved in; unelected, and with no mandate from the majority in the member states.  Overnight, almost, the original twelve member states became 27; rapidly and without planning.

I am a sentient human being who recognises that:

a:  political structures headed by bureaucrats do not work;  and

b:  A ponderous union of 27 countries many of whom have virulently hated each other’s guts for centuries, who share no common language, cannot be patched into a cohesive whole by anything short of a miracle, and miracles don’t happen.

I haven’t won the lottery yet, either.  The odds stack up about the same.

The dream died.  It died at Maastricht.

So…

Do I want to live in an independent, dynamic Britain, free to take its place in the world?  Yes.

Do I want to see the people of Britain determine the future of Britain?  Yes.

On a conspicuously memorable date in 2016 the government of the day, conscious of a steadily rising swell of discontent, decided to actually ask the voters – real people – if they wanted to leave this bloated, federalist EU.  They said yes.

It was an unexpected answer – it sent shock-waves through the pseudo-intellectual metropolitan elite and shook the putty from the windows of those who actually score from having no boundaries between nations, the big multi-national corporations, the financial institutions, the academic community, and the criminals.

So accustomed have our politicians become to manipulating public opinion, no-one in the ‘Westminster Bubble’ believed that an outbreak of common sense could happen.  Once they realised it had happened, they set in motion the biggest campaign of mud-slinging and deliberate scare tactics I think the British public has ever seen.

They galvanised a sympathetic media into action.  They compiled a small dictionary of gloom, utilising terms like ‘falling off a cliff’, ‘walking blindfolded into catastrophe’ and ‘the disaster of a no deal’ and fed it to the press pack.

A BBC reporter or presenter could no more omit a deleterious ‘Brexit’ reference from a news report or general interest item than they could appear in the month before Remembrance Day without sporting a poppy.

The Prime Minister managed to shelve the whole thing for nearly two years and then set in motion a sort of wheedling apology that masqueraded as a negotiating approach to the EU bureaucrats – a tactic meant to imply that the ‘leave’ voters were either deluded old fools or naughty children who hadn’t grown up.

The harsh truth I would wish you to consider is:

Those whose weeping and wailing is the loudest heard are those who represent the fatted calf of corporate capitalism, the big bonus guys, the golden parachute guys.  The industrialist who charges you thirty K for a car he made for 3.5 K, the multi-national producer of the incredibly shrinking candy bar, the purveyor of lorry-loads of sheep on three-days-long journeys from nation to nation in conditions that are conspicuously cruel and will only end in their slaughter.

The point I want to drive home is one for the little guys, because crushed beneath the thirty-stone arses of these corporate slobs is a fresh, vital queue of business wannabes who, given their chance to shine, can secure the future of this vibrant land three times over.   Britain has the ideas, the resources and the sheer talent to succeed far, far better on its own than as the member of an asset-stripping club like the EU.

We have so much to offer the world, and a world ready to listen to what we say.  We have the right to enact our own laws, to fish our own waters, to retain tax owed on British sales, and not have it leeched from our system by Luxembourg, or Dublin.

I beg you to think, as I have thought, about where your loyalties lie.  Sadly, all Europe ever wanted to do with our country was raid it for its natural advantages.   The truth of the European Federal State is that it is a leaking, institutionally corrupted hulk desperately in search of a sandbank to stop it from disappearing beneath the waves.

Leave them to it.  Become British and become proud of who you are.  Demand that those for whom you voted do your will.

Just leave.