Parliamentary Democracy…the new buzzword phrase that is being bandied about by pro-EU types as if it was the sword in the stone….the kingmaker and cure for all Britain’s woes…ironically…because of course there’s nothing they’d like less than British parliamentary democracy preferring instead to be ruled by an unelected Commission in Brussels.
Naturally their new found enthusiasm for ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ is nowt but a ploy to undermine that very concept. They declare that the court case to stop Brexit was merely a necessary action to protect democracy from the Fascist tyranny of May’s attempt to trigger Article 50…never mind that Parliament, by a margin of 6 to 1, had already implicitly authorised that when they agreed to an in/out referendum on the EU.
I think Labour MP Jess Phillips shows what they mean by their version of ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ when she said that it was not her job to listen and represent her constituents but to lead them and make them follow her views even if they disagreed with her. Not sure she has quite got the hang of democracy and being a ‘representative of the People’. A bit too much Parliament and not enough Democracy. More Parliamentary Fascism than democracy methinks.
On Friday on 5Live we heard some interviews with Welsh voters who supported Brexit [17:07]... yet another Labour MP showed his colours as he swept aside their concerns telling us that these poor, uneducated simple Welsh folk just didn’t understand that the court case was helping them out. Foster, doing a proper bit of journalism, pointed out that there was a ‘disconnect’ between what the Leave voters thought and what the likes of that Labour politician thought…they think he is the enemy whilst he thinks they just didn’t understand that they voted for Parliamentary sovereignty and that is exactly what the court case gave them.
Well…no. The whole point of the referendum was precisely that not only did they want to break away from the unelected reign of the EU but that they didn’t trust the British politicians to represent them in regard to the EU….quite rightly as it turns out as those politicians are clearly morally and politically corrupt as they seek to overturn the vote now that it has gone against their own desires.
Bringing sovereignty back to a British Parliament does not mean handing over power to those politicians to do as they like…..in the US the ‘Commons’ is called the House of Representatives….representative…a word that seems to have been forgotten by our elected ‘elite’…and the BBC all too often.
The vote was about returning power to British people not to the large number of EU cronies that dominate the British Parliament….at least we can get rid of these ‘quislings’ as Farage might call them when we can do nothing to rid ourselves of the condescending arrogance of the likes of the unelected Juncker….except leave the EU….oh..yes…that’s exactly what we have voted for. Please note well British MPs.
In a later interview with EU stooge, Ken Clarke, [18:06] Foster does challenge him several times on his stance…such as he will vote against Brexit ‘exercising his judgement’ as he puts it…he thinks we have an autocratic, unaccountable government driven by a right-wing press in a fever of excitement about a single vote and we’re heading towards a strange version of a pre-Parliamentary government. A pretty important and significant vote. Hence the feverish, facist and unaccountable elites’ attempt to thwart the will of the People. Odd how Ken forgets that the EU is a government that is unelected and passes down edicts upon us with threats of grinding punishment if we don’t obey their diktats.
The comments from Jess Philips are unsurprising. She’s a sexist nutter who uses the gender victim card as a means of getting away with views and behaviour that should disqualify her from public office. She gas been privileged due to her gender and Labour’s illegal all-female shortlists.
Anyone else remember Lord Hailsham (aka Quintin Hogg Conservative MP)?
He was warning of “Elective dictatorship” when I was a kid.
The thing that always sticks in my mind about Quintin Hogg was the identity of the masked nude waiter at one of Mariella Novotny’s parties. I believe she used to refer to herself as ‘the Government’s Chief Whip’
For those too young to remember, look up Christine Keeler, John Profumo, the Duchess of Argyle (photo was shown in court of her on her knees giving a blow job. The identity of the recipient was not revealed as the photo did not include his head.) Stephen Ward and Eugene Ivanov.
Democracy means populism . A word that should be rehabilitated into our vocabulary . Democracy also means that the people might make mistakes ( large and small , nationally and locally ) but so long as they are willing to pay for the mistakes , so what ? . Who is anyone to curtail democracy for some Greater Good ?
I hear the BBC and leftards invoking Hitler and how he came to power , plus his use of plebiscites .
Well he came to power then abolished any means of removing himself , held plebiscites that even the HoC regarded as not too untoward , then had secret police , secrecy , cronyism and a weird form of government . Hardly populist .
How many times have we entrusted someone only to realise they weren’t capable of that trust , not because they were evil , but because their competence was less than what they themselves bragged about ?
Wisdom comes with age, as you learn from your mistakes, such as voting Remain in 1975, and then voting for Brexit forty years later. This Wisdom with age was also a statistical correlation that favoured Brexit, and proved that the correct decision was made. The first Brexit vote in 1975 showed no “Wisdom Factor” in the voting, proving that even the older generation where initially fooled into thinking this was about Self-Government with Free Trade, rather than an Anti-Democratic, Centralist and Authoritarian dream.
Well said, Richard
The only parliamentary democracy that we the plebs get is to vote once every 5 years or so. After that, they do as they like.
Please, I beseech you all, visit the Harrogate Agenda website and sign up.
That is the only form of democracy which gives the people the control we need.
It will be an uphill struggle because turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
I think it is useful on this thread to be reminded of Emmanuel Goldstein’s excellent post on this site:
http://www.biasedbbc.tv/blog/2016/11/07/start-the-week-open-thread-102/#comment-788735
Also the blog of Jamie Foster:
http://www.jamiefoster.org.uk/brexit-gunpowder-treason-plot/
Jamie Foster’s conclusion is as follows:
The Supreme Court has a choice as to whether to treat this case as a legal Sudoku that can be solved by reference to case-law and precedent, or to recognise the fundamental legal principle before them and confront it with the full force of their independent judicial brilliance. In my very humble opinion whatever they decide their decision must be clear and comprehensible to all of us that it affects. That is to say all of us. My hope, although not necessarily my expectation, is that they will do the right thing.
That is to say to confirm that our elected representatives in parliament vigorously debate issues and vote on our behalf, but when they hear from us directly on a matter, they defer to the people who gave them the power and allow the Executive to take its orders from source. In that way they could really protect not only the independence of the judiciary, the integrity of parliament and the separation of powers, but they could let off some legal fireworks truly worth watching.
Plagiarised quisquose but thanks anyhow.
Another plagiarism, I prefer to call it a quote, from the Jamie Foster site.
David Iggulden says:
November 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm
If it is true, as I have read, that the three High Court judges based a major part of their decision upon other precedents in British law, dating back to 1687, surely other EU matters should be subject to the same precedents? This would make the vast majority of the EU laws, regulations and directives imposed upon the UK people illegal because, under British law, all laws must be first debated, voted on, and passed by Parliament before being enacted into law.
One can only hope – and trust – the Supreme Court judges will study the well-known and published terms of the EU referendum, sent to every voter in the UK, and correct the flawed decision of the High Court judges.
An apposite point, I would suggest.
…..surely other EU matters should be subject to the same precedents? This would make the vast majority of the EU laws, regulations and directives imposed upon the UK people illegal because, under British law, all laws must be first debated, voted on, and passed by Parliament before being enacted into law.
A powerful clarity of thought which our treasured national broadcaster should have been employing in the countless interviews and debates it has held since the judges’ ruling.
But they could not possibly use such an argument to challenge the breathtakingly arrogant doublespeak coming out of the overfed gobs of our Parliamentarians, academics and celebrities as it would be in contravention of EU-defined rules on impartiality.
Have you heard the story of the Three Woolly minded judges.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about all this is the sheer self regard in which MPs hold themselves. Experts in every single subject they believe they can hols the government to ‘account’ when in reality none of them has any insight what so ever.
So specialised and difficult is the subject of trade negotiations that it is believed that Briton does not possess the skills, and will have to bring in the experience from other countries.
These experts will advise and inform the UK negotiating team and the cabinet – but what do they know when the BBC, and the Judges, and the whole of parliament are so expert about the thing that they can ‘hold the government to account’ before the negotiations commence?
Aside from the fact that the countries position will be revealed and compromised, what on earth do they seriously believe they can contribute to the countries greater good by yakking about something they know nothing about?
They couldn’t tell a good or bad negotiating position if they fell over one, and yet their massive self deluded egos tell them they can !
If you are buying a house, would you say to the seller “I will offer you £250,000 for this house but I am willing to go to £350,000”
Is this the type of detail the remoaners want us to disclose in the Brexit negotiations?
I know that by voting leave I am regarded as not having a clue about what I voted for and that I’m thick but I thought Brexit meant out of the eu and that includes all its tentacles into things like immigration, fishing and the single market.
Plus EU contributions to various ‘charities’ and the BBC so that they can campaign on its behalf.
The people who took the government to the high court are totally disingenuous. It is easy to see that they are remainiacs who want to disrupt Brexit. If they were neutral or pro leave they would not have taken any action because they would have been getting their way. The story that they were fighting for parliamentary democracy doesn’t fool anyone.
Great post Alan.
Hi all. This nonsense from the remoaners is infuriating and the BBC continue with their pro-Euro propaganda. From their website today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37904160):
“Lord Judge said it would be seen as a victory for pro-Brexit demonstrators should the Supreme Court reverse last week’s controversial High Court ruling.”
Damn right it would!
So, the old fart thinks it would be bad for public order if the judges are seen to be swayed by demonstrations, even if they won’t actually be swayed because they’re above that sort of thing? So how come it’s perfectly OK for the judges to belong to pro-EU bodies? Won’t they be seen to be swayed by that too? Isn’t that just as bad for public order? Perhaps some sides are more prone to disrupting public order than others. Or so he thinks, because the rule book is about to be ripped up if this carries on.
He pretty well confirms the bias in judicial thinking right there.
Biased judiciary?
It’s daily. Tweet against migrants and it is jail,burn poppies shouting death to British soldiers and you get a £50 fine. The list is endless
I saw an argument between Ian Hislop and a Tory MP on “Have I Got a Bit More News For You”. Hislop took the Establishment side of the argument, implying that it was funny that the MP was opposing the Judiciary wanting to give supremacy to the supposed “Parliamentary Democracy”.
But the point of the Referendum was that Immigration Policy proves the point that since the Maastricht Treaty, Britain has not got a “Parliamentary Democracy” but a “Puppet Parliament” on this and other issues, therefore the unelected Judiciary has given Parliament the right to vote against the will of the people to restore a “Parliamentary Democracy”.
When the Tory MP stood up for the people and against Hislop and the Judicial Establishment, only a few members of the audience, reflecting a Mensa percentage, gave applause in support of Democracy.
Other than the only undemocratic legislators in the western world, members of the House of Lords, would dare to vote to retain its puppet status. I do not think the House of Commons would vote against restoring Parliamentary Democracy, in defiance of the Referendum result. Otherwise it would justify a reactivation of the English Civil War.
I think I remember that people like Hislop used to regard the Levellers as Anti-Establishment heroes, whose greatest achievement was the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649, but it was the Tory MP in another argument that pointed out to Hislop, that the House of Lords was not Democratic.
It looks like Private Eye will now go from Pro-Establishment mocking of Anti-EU types to Pro-Establishment mocking of Anti-House of Lords types.
Do you not remember that the PE issue immediately following the referendum result was to fill nearly every page with reasons why we should remain in the EU. Obviously Hislop instructions to his writers.
Used to have a lot of time for Hislop. Unfortunately he took the BBC shilling some years ago. How Private Eye cannot bring itself to satirise the bias of the Establishment (including the BBC and most of the broadcast media) towards the undemocratic EU and the shameless doublespeak about ‘parliamentary democracy’ by the remainers, is a measure of how corrupt the publication has become and how BBC-like in that it survives on a long-lost reputation of impartiality.
Private Eye is now part of the leftist, anti-democratic ‘we know what’s best for you’ Establishment and should be viewed like any other left-leaning publication.
Would Hislop, or anyone else for that matter, even et a look in at the BBC if he wasn’t left leaning? Jim Davidson was the last “face” I saw on this channel and he was a fan of Margaret Thatcher, so I assume his politics didn’t fit the mean.
Excellent article about the High Court judgement from John Redwood here:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/11/08/the-errors-of-the-high-court-judgement-about-article-50/
Superb. That should be compulsory reading at the BBC – not that they’d do anything with it, of course.
The other main argument the judges used was the bizarre idea that prerogative powers of Ministers can never be used to change UK law. What do they think has been happening for the 44 years of our membership of the EU? Time after time Ministers have consented to an EU law under prerogative powers which directly changes UK law. Why did they approve and encourage this process, and then turn round when we wish to use the same method to restore UK Parliamentary control and say it cannot be done?
I’m sure this is purely academic but it would be interesting to see the financial benefits Ms Miller may accrue should she succeed in her one woman crusade for democracy.
I would like to ask Labour MP Jess Phillips how many people were raped in Broad street Birmingham in the last month?
Patten and fellow BBC alumnus embodiment of integrity Peston (see him gang up with Emily Wild Thornbury on Nigel… both utterly wrong) seem to on a real winning streak at the moment…
http://order-order.com/2016/11/08/no-sajid-javid-not-accuse-judges-thwarting-democracy/
http://order-order.com/2016/11/08/248955/
“On ITV last night, Robert Peston and Emily Thornberry claimed the Leave campaign did not make clear that Brexit meant leaving the single market. Peston told Nigel Farage:
“I’m not sure that’s right. I really don’t think that’s right. It’s not what Boris said. It’s not what Michael Gove said.”
As anyone following the news in the last six months will know, Boris and Gove did say it. Peston completely wrong. Again.
I wonder if it will matter more, or less than when he was fouling up all those years at the world’s most trusted broadcaster as a senior editor on this beat?
Thornbury of course has almost never been right, so the BBC will continue to seek her option daily.
“on 5Live we heard some interviews with Welsh voters who supported Brexit [17:07]… yet another Labour MP showed his colours as he swept aside their concerns telling us that these poor, uneducated simple Welsh folk just didn’t understand that the court case was helping them out”
Not a attitude that seems to engage with actual voters.
Maybe get lawyers involved?