Choices time. Which is worse?

A British rapper, slowthai, yes, that’s his stage name, screaming obscenities such as "f*** Boris" during the live BBC Four broadcast of the Mercury Prize awards ceremony while brandishing an effigy of Boris Johnson’s severed head. (I’ve yet to hear if the producer of the show, who must, or should have known the stunt was going to happen, is still in a job.).    

Or how about when Liam Byrne who said the PM was guilty of treason?   That's a very strong accusation.  And to proclaim guilt before he's even been tried, that sounds like a kangaroo court to me.  Anyway, as one response to Mr Byrne noted, “How could anyone know it was illegal before the Supreme Court published its conclusion. Even the English High Court initially found it was not illegal”. 

Or Jess Phillips who said she will “knife Corbyn in the front”.   Which is odd for Jess as she is, more often than not, measured and sensible.

But one of the biggest offenders is John McDonnell, shadow chancellor and the real Marxist brains behind Corbyn.  His track record includes comparing the PM to a "dictator" during WWII, fantasised about murdering Margaret Thatcher, made the infamous “lynch the b*tch” comments on Esther McVey, accused the Conservatives of social murder and to round it off wanted to garrote Lib Dem Danny Alexander.  What a nice turn of phrase he has.   Of course he now says they were all just in jest.  Aye, right.

Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbot do not have clean hands either.  They have, amongst other things, alleged that the Conservative /Lib Dem coalition government killed 120,000 people and the Conservative were “cruel and callous”.  Other Labour figures also get in on the act.   David Lammy said Leavers behaved like Nazis, and then adding the thought that this comparison wasn’t strong enough.   

And Jo Swinsons lily white LibDems?  Let's ignore the fact that Ms Swinson said on live TV that she wouldn't respect the result of a further referendum if it didn't go her way, Ed Davey called for a remain alliance in Uxbridge to "decapitate" Boris.   He apologised quickly enough, but the damage was done.

Then along comes Boris.  In response to a Labour MP, Paula Sherriff, who invoked the memory of murdered MP Jo Cox in her question, the prime minster replied, in essence, that a democrat like Jo Cox would have accepted the result of a democratic vote and got on with it.  At least, I hope that is what she would have done. From Boris no threat of decapitation or murder.  No calls of traitor.  No saying anyone was a Nazi. Just a statement of the blindingly obvious.  MPs should respect the will of the people.  Ms Sherriff spoiled her big moment of fame on on TV today when she sought to characterise the Conservatives as "this wicked, grotesque government".  

Perhaps Boris should not have risen to the bait.  But the faux outrage emanating from the opposition benches is somewhat nauseating given their track record in abusive language. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.  

Has the Supreme Court broken the law?

Some learned friends believe so.  And the consequences of them doing so are many.  The most obvious, and worrying, is the call that the judiciary now needs to have its wings clipped.  And if that does happen it is their own fault.       

But why are we even here?  Boiling the whole thing down, the political fundamentals against which the Miller-Cherry case fell to be decided are as follows: (1) a majority of those voting in the EU referendum voted to leave; (2) a parliament was subsequently elected in which 85 per cent of MPs won their seats on the promise to respect the referendum result; and (3) in the event most of those MPs reneged on that promise and obstructed the country’s departure from the EU both with a deal (31 March) and now without one (31 October).    

That departure was set in law by MPs themselves.     

Remainer MPs in Parliament then set themseleves on a collision course by seeking to frustrate the will of the Parliament itself and the will of the people as expressed in two votes, the Referendum and the General Election. So, the government decided it wanted to implement the will of the people and one way of doing that would be to prorogue on the basis that it would allow what people had voted for twice and parliament itself had brought into law would actually happen.   Enter the Remain establishment and the lawyers.   

As Andrew Newcombe QC argues, the power-grab of the Court concentrates on the advice allegedly given to Her Majesty.  This is a neat tactic to get around Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (and the equivalent provision in the Claim of Right 1689).  As Newcombe points out:  “That Article precludes the questioning of proceedings in Parliament, and the court held, wrongly in my view, that the act of prorogation is not such a proceeding.”      

This, he argues, ignores the concept of the monarch in Parliament.  “In proroguing Parliament, the Queen is acting as part of that Parliament and the prorogation is unavoidably a proceeding therein. If this be right, the proceedings before the Supreme Court were themselves unlawful.”   

Which rather puts a different slant on things if the court itself was breaking the law.

Winner takes all?

When I voted for my choice at the general election, I did so in the knowledge that candidate with the most votes would be the winner.  So we had the scenario that Jo Swinson had the most votes and therefore won the seat of East Dunbartonshire.  

But she didn’t have a majority.  Yes, she had 40.6% of the vote, but that’s almost 10% short of a 50%.  Still, no one argued, that’s the way it is.  She won.  Well done Jo.

So one did wonder the mind-set that was guiding the interpretation of the law of the 11 law lords in the Supreme Court if they agreed with the words of former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Sumption, who told the BBC that “52% of the electorate simply cannot have 100% of the spoils, they have to engage with the rest”.  If that was their guiding principle, we are in trouble.   

Doesn’t he realise that the way we operate in the UK is the winner takes all.  The referendum was a binary choice, Leave or Remain.   It was agreed to be a binary choice by the MPs that are now demanding its result be overturned.      

One does wonder what would have happened if the vote had gone the other way.  Would Remainers be keen to compromise for the views of Leavers to be taken into account?   

Somehow I don’t think so. 

What's next?

Now that the judiciary have decided that they do have a role in the political process by ordering MPs back to parliament, can we expect them to similarly intervene to command MPs to enact the legislation they already passed in the form of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which began the UKs withdrawal from the European Union?  

Many of those MPs who allege the prime minister is a liar and demand his resignation should reflect that they stood for election on a manifesto to enact Article 50, a policy that they didn’t believe in.  They deliberately misled the people into voting for them.  Shouldn’t they also resign?

A new Empire is being born.

I don’t think I have ever see a Liberal Democrat ever stand and cheer and clap the British Empire.   

So it was rather astonishing to see their conference whooping to the rafters as the EU Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt declared that his vison was a European Empire.   

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the last time someone suggested a European Empire in 1933, it all ended horribly?

Housewives, the lot of you!

“A referendum on this matter consists of consulting people who don’t know the problems instead of consulting people who know them.  I would deplore a situation in which the policy of this great country should be left to housewives.  It should be decided instead by trained and informed people.”    
So said Jean Rey, ex-President of the European Commission, in 1974.   

Clearly John Bercow, Jo Swinson, Hilary Benn and others who threw their toys out the pram when they lost the referendum still think we are housewives.

One rule for you. One rule for me?

On 23 June 2016 the people, who are sovereign, voted to leave the EU.  Period.   

That was the response to a question MPs themselves had approved.  No question of there needing to be a deal.   

That MPs should seek to stop that is the truly undemocratic act.  That the Speaker of the House of Commons advocates such an act in a very partisan speech is outrageous.  

In the real world, which Remain MPs seem to longer inhabit, any senior officer in a business so blatantly going against he wishes of the majority of the shareholders would be out the door.   

Is Mr Bercow advocating that he and MPs should disobey the law that set in place the referendum?   

Looks like it.

Which did you hear on the news?

It was busy day in two courts yesterday.    If I told you that a Scottish court decided a case challenging the prorogation, you would nod.  Yes, you’ve seen that the case brought by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and others saw judges coming to a ruling that “the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament”.  You can read the summary of their opinion here.

But were you aware of the other ruling by a court yesterday?    

The other one was the one that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament.   Yes, you heard that right.  Just follow this carefully.    

Last week the High Court dismissed claims by Gina Miller and John Major that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power".    And yesterday saw the publication of the full ruling.  

And the top team of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp have concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts.    

In their judgement, they stated:   "We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."   You can read the full judgement for yourself or a summary.

And the question is, why did the ruling in Scotland command more air time than the other ?  Make up your own mind on that.    

But it is no surprise  the Scottish verdict was the one the pro Remain media focused on with rent a mouth bitter MPs demanding that the House of Commons immediately be reconvened.  Based on which judgement I would ask?

Who is to blame?

Even though it is 6 weeks out of date and null and void given the massive preparations that have been going on since the new prime minister arrived, one does wonder why the Yellowhammer worst case scenario prediction that up to 85 per cent of lorries “may not be ready for French customs” was the case three years after the referendum.   

What was the May/Hammond government doing for three years that something as basic as this was not in place years ago?  Instead of demanding emails and WhatsApp messages the bitter Remainers that will not accept the result of the biggest democratic vote the UK has seen should be demanding that Mrs May and Mr Hammond be held to account.    

The more we hear about the disastrous past the more we should be asking about potential misconduct in public office.   

What was Mr Corbyn on last night?

Well, the new jobs figures have have been released this morning by the Office of National Statistics.  They show some interesting trends.  

For example, average pay leaping to a growth rate of 4% in the last year, the fastest increase in over a decade.  That is twice the rate of inflation.   

Then there is unemployment. Figures continue to fall.  We now have the lowest levels in 45 years.  45 years!!!   And that over 300,000 more full time jobs than a year ago.   

Which does may you wonder what planet Jeremy Corbyn is on.  In his speech last night justifying why he should not support a general election, he chuntered out all the old propaganda lines of the left.  Just go to the parliament website where you can listen to it.  It truly is frightening that he  aspires to lead our nation.

All this good news about the economy despite Brexit, as the BBC would say.

Bias? It's off the scale.

I desperately want the BBC to be good at their journalism.  There are occasional glimpses of what that could look like.  And when they are good, they are very good.   

But today’s World at One (Radio4) was not one of them.  Twenty five solid minutes of interviews with Labour pro-Europeans, pro-EU former Tory MPs, and people in Paris and Dublin who are clearly interfering by seeking to undermine the UK's interests.  It really was quite something.  

Balance?  None.

Just in case Gina Miller and John Major have forgotten......

Surrender Bill Passes.

Well, how remarkable is that.  Tonight MPs have passed anti-No Deal legislation which forces the UK prime minister not just to ask for an extension but accept, no questions asked, any terms the EU may propose.   

In other words, they have voted to give away the power for parliament to take a decision and handed it right to the EU.   You read that right.

Seriously, what were the MPs thinking of?  It means the EU will now tell the UK what to do.  Messrs Junker, Barnier et al must be laughing their heads off tonight.

Image from order-order.com