The Burning of the Reichstag.

Recently the UK Supreme Court has considering the issue of the prorogation of Parliament.

It has been said that it handed down its ruling on Tuesday (24/9/19).

I think though that under the circumstances; "Ruling" is too harsh a term.

If the Supreme Court Justices consider their emanation to be a legal ruling then they have wildly disregarded the law and abused their own positions.

That leaves little option other than to discuss the manner in which they will be dismissed.

A process which involves nasty questions about how much Britain's membership of the EU contributes to the sense of self of five former employees of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

After all "Brexit Anxiety Syndrome" is recognised by the Crown. And medical certificates have been issued;

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110130/brexit-latest-news-stress-anxiety-mental-health-counselling-civil-servants

So I think it is more appropriate to say the Supreme Court has handed down a; "Teaching Material." For law schools across the Commonwealth.

After all it is all too common for Existentialism to give way to Nihilism. I though don't think we should burn the whole place down. Just so Lord Justice Hodge can maintain his relationship with his son, George.

The question, I think we all agree continues to be before the Supreme Court, relates to the concept of; "Parliamentary Sovereignty."

Many Members of the Commons on the Remain side have tried to dupe the public into thinking this means that they hold absolute power. Answerable to no-one. Not even the electorate.

That is completely untrue. Parliament is only sovereign in the sense that all houses in Britain are sovereign.

That is to say that either house of Parliament is able to go about its business. Free from undue interference from the Monarch or, indeed, the other house of Parliament.

The example I always use is that of the police. If you are being pedantic or obnoxious the police are part of the forces of the Crown. The Monarch's men-at-arms.

The police cannot just storm into any British house simply because they want to.

Instead they must first obtain a Warrant of Entry from a Judge. If they wish to search the house they must also obtain a Warrant of Search.

There is of course another way the police can enter a house. They can ask and receive the permission of the householder.

Some of Britain's less professional police forces still attempt to trick arrested people into giving permission for search and entry. When they know that no Judge would grant a warrant.

The challenge to the prorogation of Parliament has been brought to prevent the opening of a new Parliamentary session. The State Opening of Parliament.

Such is the scale of constitutional vandalism that if the Supreme Court has handed down a ruling then it is far from clear that a new Parliamentary session can ever be opened. Instead leaving us stuck with these current MP's until they die.

However on YouTube etc you can go and view footage of previous State Openings of Parliament. These include a very clear visual display of the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

The new Parliamentary session is opened by a speech by the Monarch. This takes place in the upper house, the House of Lords. Both the Monarch and members of the lower house, the House of Commons have to be formally invited into the House of Lords.

The invitation is extended to the Commons by; "The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod." The head of security for the House of Lords.

As Black Rod walks the lobby from the Lords to the Commons the head of security for the Commons shuts and barricades the doors. This forces Black Rod to knock on those doors with that black rod of his and ask members of the Commons permission to enter their house.

Although it seems like quaint pageantry this act continues to have full legal forces. It dates back from a time when the Monarch and members from both houses would send armed men to kidnap members of the other house they objected to.

Parliament is not technically prorogued by the Monarch. Instead it is prorogued by the Privy Council. A council of advisers headed by the Monarch. The actual Statutory Instrument used is known as an; "Order of Council."

There are currently over 650 members of the Privy Council. Including many members of the House of Commons. Such as Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party and Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party.

So when those members of the Commons say they object to prorogation they are in fact objecting to something they, themselves have done.

Generally though an Order of Council is considered, in the first instance, to be the exercising of a Royal Power.

That though changes when it is accepted by Parliament. At that point it becomes both the exercising of a Royal Power and the exercising of a Parliamentary proceeding.

Rather like the example of me inviting a police officer into my home.

That requires them to exercise their power to ask. It also requires me to exercise my power to agree to their request. The act itself represents us both exercising our powers.

In producing its teaching material the Supreme Court has completely disregarded this. Treating an Order of Council to be only the exercise of a Royal Power.

In doing this the Supreme Court has disregarded a host of Common Law principles. And crucially a number of statutes or written laws.

Chief amongst these is the Bill of Rights of 1689.

This establishes the Freedom of Speech, Debate or Other Proceeding in either house of Parliament. This freedom means that any proceeding or exercise of Parliamentary power cannot be questioned or impeached by any Court.

That freedom is known as the principle of; "Parliamentary Supremacy."

However before John Bercow launches into another of his spittle flecked tirades I should point out that refers only to Parliament's supremacy over the Courts. The electorate retains supremacy over Parliament.

In talk about negotiations, particularly Brexit negotiations, people often refer to; "Red Lines That Cannot be Crossed."

The UK House of Commons is home to the actual Red Lines from which the saying originates.

In front of the two opposing benches there are red lines on the floor. These red lines are two sword lengths apart. It has long been absolutely forbidden for an MP to cross the red line before them without permission. This rule exists entirely to stop rival MP's from attacking each other with swords.

Even now if Jeremy Corbyn were to leap across the dispatch box and lop off Boris Johnson's head with a sword that would not be considered a matter for the Courts. Instead it would be a matter for the Speaker and Parliament itself.

Although I suspect that in these modern times they would immediately refer the matter to the Courts. Even if I think quite a few people would like to see the current House of Commons set to; "Thunderdome." In order to break the impasse.

This Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) is vital to the function of democracy. It allows the people to have a say in and consent to the laws they are governed by.

Without the consent of the people you are left with tyranny.

The alternative to Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) is that Judges can pass or rescind laws as they wish. "Legislating From the Bench" as it is known. Aside from tyranny this is a recipe for chaos and corruption.

Imagine if Parliament had set environmental protection rules. Stating that Fracking must stop once earthquakes over a certain level are detected.

If you work for the biggest fracking company in the country you would obviously be keen for your brother, a Judge, to simply overturn those rules. Allowing you to line your pockets while local people have their homes destroyed without any recourse.

Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689) there was a significant movement amongst Judges who thought they should be able to legislate from the bench.

Take for example Day v Savadge (1615) in which Judge Coke declared;

"Even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as to make a man judge in his own cause is void in itself."

The adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689) completely ended that debate. It codified into law that no Judge may question or overturn a law or other Parliamentary proceeding.

Even Coke himself came around to supporting the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts).

It is not an overstatement to say that the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) is tested and upheld every day, in almost every case before British Courts over the last 330 years.

For example I think it is fair to say that there are a significant number of British Judges who consider it morally wrong to punish drug addicts for possessing the drugs to which they are addicted. Instead considering it something that should be treated as a health problem.

However if it is proved before them that a drug addict was in possession of drugs they know they have to convict them. Overturning a law they disagree with is simply not an option.

Recently there was a lot of publicity surrounding the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse. Who died after eating a sandwich containing sesame seeds to which she was allergic.

The Judge in the case felt the law which stated the sandwich maker did not have to clearly list the allergens was insufficient. However they did not attempt to change the law themselves. Instead knowing that merely writing to Parliament suggesting the law be changed was the limit of their powers.

It is then certainly beyond any dispute that the Supreme Court lacks the power to remove the elements of the Bill of Rights (1689) relating to the Freedom of Parliamentary Proceeding.

The only way they could even consider the case is if they felt Parliament had not consented to prorogation. Leaving the Order of Council as merely the exercising of a Royal Power.

There is though absolutely no question that Parliament had given its consent to prorogation. It gave that consent on June 21st 2017 (21/6/17). At the last State Opening of Parliament.

By allowing the session of Parliament to be opened Parliament consented to it being brought to an end through the issuing of a Order of Council. Either to allow for the opening of a new session of Parliament or for the calling of a General Election in accordance with the Fixed Term Parliament's Act of 2011.

That arrangement is very far from the arcane exercising of the Divine Right of Monarchs.

While this question has been before the UK Supreme Court Israel has had another General Election. Which are always a white-knuckle ride.

The concept of a King of the Jews is a very powerful one within Judaism. So Israel is most certainly not a Monarchy. Instead it is a Parliamentary Republic.

However it was not the Israeli Prime Minister or the Israeli Parliament which ended the session and called a General Election. That fell to its Head of State, President Reuven Rivlin.

President Rivlin has chosen today to exercise another of his powers as Head of State. Calling on Benjamin Netenyahu to attempt to form a government. Allowing President Rivlin to re-open Parliament.

There has also recently been a similar situation in Italy. Which is also a Parliamentary Republic.

The leader of the Northern League Party withdrew from the governing coalition. In the hope of triggering a General Election. However the power to dissolve Italy's Parliament and call a General Election lies with its President Sergio Mattarella.

President Mattarella instead instructed two other Italian parties, the Five Star Movement and the Democratic Party, to form a coalition. They were successful in this effort meaning no General Election was called.

Furthermore June 21st 2017 (21/6/17) was not the only occasion Parliament gave its consent to prorogation. They restated their consent to prorogation on September 10th 2019 (10/9/19).

When Black Rod walked across the lobby from the Lords to the Commons the doors of the Commons were not closed and barricaded. Instead Black Rod was invited in, the Order of Council was read, the Commons session was ended and members of the Commons walked with Black Rod into the Lords.

The appellants in the case before the Supreme Court, Gina Miller et al, have attempted to argue that this consent  to prorogation, given twice by Parliament, was not valid. On the grounds that it had been obtained through fraud or some other irregularity.

This alone should have made clear to the Supreme Court the vexatious nature of the application.

It served no purpose other than to force the respondent to hand over their private communications and submit their reputation to what, anywhere else, would be considered slander and libel.

Which is normally the sort of behaviour which sees lawyers jailed for holding the Court in contempt and expelled from the profession in disgrace.

This question of whether a Parliamentary proceeding can be challenged on the grounds of fraud or other irregularity was very much part of the argument put forward by Judges opposed to the Bill of Rights (1689).

As part of the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689) wrote into statute that you cannot challenge a Parliamentary proceeding on grounds of fraud or other irregularity.

Therefore any challenge on those grounds has no legal validity. Strictly speaking they should be immediately dismissed and not even granted a hearing.

However Courts have some leeway in deciding which applications they hear. So this issue of fraud or irregularity has been tested and upheld almost as frequently as the other aspects of Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) have been tested and upheld.

Parliamentary proceedings very often end up costing private citizens and business' money. So are frequently challenged.

This most commonly occurs when the government decides that it wants to build something like a new airport, road or railway line. So they issue Compulsory Purchase Orders (Eminent Domain, in the US) for all properties in the path of the new development.

Today Parliament has denied the Conservative Party a recess to hold their party conference in Manchester. Despite both the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties being granted recesses to hold their party conference.

So it seems appropriate to mention High Speed Rail 2 (HS2). Plans to build a railway line that dramatically cuts journey times between London and Manchester.

Compulsory Purchase Orders have already been issued for the properties along the proposed route of HS2. Almost without exception they have been challenged by the property owners. One particularly high profile case involved the comedian/TV presenter John Bishop.

It is this area of law which provides one of the clearest precedents on whether Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) can be challenged on grounds of fraud or irregularity. British Railways Board v Pickin (1974).

Pickin claimed that British Rail had mislead Parliament over its need to deprive him of parts of his land. Citing another precedent from 1842 the application was dismissed as;

"Frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court."

The matter was discussed in the House of Lords. Who concluded that;

"Such a doctrine {allowing challenges on grounds of fraud or irregularity} would be dangerous and impermissible."

That debate in the House of Lords is inarguably a proceeding of Parliament. Further making it impossible for the Supreme Court allow a challenge on grounds of fraud or irregularity.

So in summary;

The Supreme Courts lacks the authority to disregard Parliament's repeated consent to prorogation. As such it cannot treat prorogation as merely the exercising of a Royal Power.

The Bill of Rights (1689) denies the Supreme Court the power to question or impeach the prorogation of Parliament.

The principle of Parliamentary Supremacy (Over the Courts) laid down in the Bill of Rights (1689) certainly denies the Supreme Court the power rewrite or otherwise amend the Bill of Rights (1689) to suit its own purpose.

That principle of Parliamentary Supremacy explicitly denies the Supreme Court the power to consider an application based on grounds of fraud or other irregularity.


To paraphrase Lady Justice Hale in her production of the Teaching Material;

"This is not a legal ruling. It is as if the Supreme Court has produced nothing but a blank sheet of paper."

"Parliament Continues to be Prorogued."

When it does return one of Parliament's first orders of business will be to perform its solemn duty and remove those eleven Justices from the Supreme Court.


19:33 on 26/9/19 (UK date).

Will The Toilet Be Returned?

Britain continues to be held hostage.

By around 300 MP's who attempting the block the nation's exit from the European Union (EU).

And yes, those 300 have taken to referring to themselves as; "The Spartans." From the 2006 movie; "300."

Which isn't ideal. Given the current tensions with Iran.

Fortunately they don't have 8,300 Greeks, Helots and Thebans to defend them. Although, judging by the news coverage, they do seem to have the backing of at least 900 Thespians.

The latest effort to block Britain's exit from the EU has been The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill. Authored by Labour MP Hilary Benn.

Benn's Bill  forces the British government to seek a delay on Leaving the EU from October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).

If the EU offers an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 Benn's Bill then automatically signs Britain up to that delay. Regardless of what it may entail or how long it will be for.
 
Benn's Bill was introduced to the lower, elected house - the House of Commons - under a piece of procedure known as Standing Order 24 (SO24). This allows for emergency debates.

However the Commons had already declared that Britain's exit from the EU does not constitute an emergency.

That Britain would Leave the EU on October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) is something that has been known about since April 2019. The Commons' reaction was to declare that it did not require emergency attention. Instead voting to send themselves off on a long holiday.

Furthermore Standing Order 24 only allows for debate. It does not allow for the introduction of bills of any type.

In order to become law a bill be must introduced at the proper time and pass through five stages in the Commons;

First Reading. Second Reading. Committee. Reporting. Third Reading.

All of these stages are independent of each other. They can only be held on five separate days.

Benn's Bill received its first reading on September 3rd (3/9/19). It then rushed through the remaining four stages in just three hours on the evening of September 4th (4/9/19).

Rather than maintaining the status quo Benn's Bill serves to massively increase the amount of power the EU exerts over Britain.

For example it forces Britain to be bound by EU laws while at the same time giving up its EU Council (EUCO) veto over new EU laws. It of course also gives up the ultimate way that Britain can free itself from EU laws. Leaving the EU.

It would be tempting to describe it as a power grab. However the EU isn't trying to grab power. British MP's are simply trying to throw away power faster than anyone can pick it up.

I don't think there is a term for that. It's something so stupid I doubt any nation has ever attempted it before.

Britain famously doesn't have a single, codified Constitution. Instead its Constitution is made up of an ad hoc series of precedents, effectively scribbled on Post It Notes dotted around the place.

When a bill can be introduced to the Commons. That it must go through five separate stages on five separate days. The nation's ability to enter into and withdraw from international treaties.

These, along with other such precedents, are the Articles of the British Constitution.

The US' written Constitution is really a direct rejection of the British system. Meaning that the two systems are almost polar opposites. Making it difficult to directly compare them.

However the passage of Benn's Bill is a bit like the US House of Representatives meeting for three hours. Then declaring that the 2nd, 5th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution no longer exist.

In those circumstances I don't think anyone would be at all surprised if the US President then vetoed the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Preventing it from becoming law.

The manner in which Benn's Bill was introduced. How it made its way through the Commons. Its efforts to massively cede power to the EU.

Any one of these provided ample reason for Benn's Bill to fall foul of the UK equivalent of a Presidential veto. The refusal of the Royal Assent required for it to become law.

Although it invokes the sort of Divine Right enjoyed by Medieval Kings and Queen's Royal Assent is far from an arcane concept.

It is something that is shared amongst almost all modern Parliamentary Republics. That the Head of State, the President, can refuse to sign into law bills passed by the legislative branch.

Aside from protecting the Constitution the refusal of Royal Assent for Benn's Bill would also have sent a timely message to Britain's MP's.

That they need to stop taking the p*as and give up on this deeply anti-democratic belief they can stop Britain Leaving the EU.

Instead they need to focus on saving face. As they prepare to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement they have lied to voters about so relentlessly.

However Benn's Bill did receive Royal Assent. On September 9th (9/9/19). Having passed through the unelected, upper house - the House of Lords.

Although it was wholly unlawful prior to receiving Royal Assent the simple fact that Benn's Bill has been signed by the Monarch makes it lawful.

The mere act of the Queen signing it scraps the existing Articles of the Constitution, replacing them with new ones.

This means that Benn's Bill creates serious Constitutional problems for Britain moving forward. Far beyond its relationship with the EU.

The Labour Party continue to command a majority in the House of Lords. It is possible that they could, in the future, command a majority in the House of Commons.

There is now nothing to prevent such a government meeting for three hours and then declaring Britain to be part of China. Or that Britain had suddenly become America's 51st State.

Of course the advantage of the British system is that such a bill could be refused Royal Assent. Scrapping the existing Articles of the Constitution, replacing them with new ones.

However the precedent set by Benn's Bill makes that much harder.

In terms of delaying Britain's exit from the EU beyond October 31st (31/10/19) Benn's Bill is almost ridiculously ineffective.

You can immediately disregard its provision to force Britain to accept any extension offered by the EU. It is entirely unlawful for the EU to offer or impose an extension. It is something that can only be sought by the nation seeking to Leave.

It's almost as if Britain has adopted a law forcing it to accept the EU's gift of a Unicorn. That's all well and good. However there is still absolutely no way for the EU to make a gift of a Unicorn.

Previous delays have involved Britain seeking an extension. With a suggested date but with the ultimate decision left up to the EU. Benn's Bill obligates Britain to seek an extension until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20). And only up until January 31st (31/1/20). The EU has to take it or leave it.

Benn's Bill also cedes significant power to the EU. So it would be very hard to justify Britain seeking an extension until January 31st (31/1/19) without demanding concessions from the EU in order to protect its interests.

For example the date of October 31st (31/10/19) was chosen for a very specific purpose. It is the date when the terms of office of the current EU Commissioners ends. On November 1st (1/11/19) they are replaced by new EU Commissioners.

Britain has had no say in who these new EU Commissioners are. The thinking was that Britain and the EU would part ways before they took up office.

If Britain is going to Remain in the EU until January 31st (31/1/19) it would be a dereliction of duty for the British government not to demand its say over these new EU Commissioners. Such as through the reinstatement of its EU Council veto.

Normally in requesting such concessions Britain would be limited in only those which can be shown to serve a specific purpose. Otherwise it could be argued that the demands were unreasonable. Simply being made to force the EU to deny the extension request. Violating the spirit of the law.

However on September 10th (10/9/19) the Commons gave a very specific instruction of how Courts should interpret Benn's Bill. They clearly stated that Britain's needs only follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.

So freed from the reasonableness requirement Britain is able to demand any concession it likes from the EU.

Britain is of course the nation which brought the World Monty Python and Boaty McBoatface.

Britain's exit from the EU is something which is being closely watched the World over. This meant that officials in similar democracies looked at Benn's Bill and immediately spotted its myriad of problems.

They suggested then that is would be sensible for it to be refused Royal Assent. As is often the case one of the loudest voices was America.

By granted Royal Assent Britain rejected all that advice. In a manner that seemed a rather rude response to what were just friendly observations.

The granting of Royal Assent to Benn's Bill is particularly offensive to the 27 members of the EU.

Prior to Benn's Bill Britain would have left the EU on October 31st (31/10/19).

Thanks to Benn's Bill it seems that Britain will still Leave the EU on October 31st (31/10/19).

The only discernible difference is that first the EU 27 will have to go through a series of brutal meetings in which they'll discuss whatever concessions Britain demands.

Given the obvious problems they might get the impression that the only reason for granting Royal Assent to Benn's Bill was to torture them.

As a result Britain has been on something of a massive apology tour over Benn's Bill.

There is even the possibility that it might seek to dig itself into a deeper hole. By overturning the prorogation of Parliament.

In order to give Benn the opportunity to repeal what is now The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act. And then try to replace it with something which might actually work.

After all his first attempt is really only fit for wiping one's a*se upon.

That said the Monarch hasn't actually signed a bill into law in about 200 years. Instead they're physically signed by a delegated proxy known as a Royal Commissioner in the House of Lords.

So a better gesture of apology may well be to dismiss the current Royal Commissioners.

After all in the passage of the similar Letwin-Cooper Bill they seemed far too chummy with the Commons Speaker.

Suggesting they don't really understand their constitutional role.I


18:30 on 17/9/19 (UK Date).

Please, Don't Pretend This Is Normal.

Even if it does sound depressingly familiar.

On June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16) Britain held a referendum on whether it wished to Leave or Remain part of the European Union (EU).

This vote was the largest democratic exercise in British political history. 72% of 46.5 million registered voters participated.

It was larger even than the 1975 referendum on joining what would become the EU. There only 64% of 40 million registered voters participated.

Of those 46.5 million voters 17.4 million voted for Britain to Leave the EU.

This was not just a clear decision to Leave the EU. It was also a victory over the 17.3 million voters who voted for Britain to join the EU back in 1975.

Despite the growing population the total number of voters who wanted to be part of the EU actually fell between 1975 and 2016. From 17.3 million to 16.1 million.

On February 8th 2017 (8/2/17) the lower, elected house of Parliament, the House of Commons, finally voted overwhelmingly to accept the decision to the electorate. Passing the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 after months of opposition and delaying tactics.

The passing of the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 allowed the British government to formally notify the EU of its intention to leave. On March 29th 2017 (29/3/17).

The issuing of that formal notification triggered the start of a negotiation process over the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. Set to expire on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

In November 2018 the EU and Britain reached an agreement on the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. This was an extremely strong agreement which gave Britain unprecedentedly favourable terms.

That Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons on January 16th 2019 (16/1/19). It was rejected by MP's.

The Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons again on March 13th 2019 (13/3/19). Again it was rejected by MP's.

Having refused to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement twice the Commons forced the British government to seek a delay on leaving the EU. At the EU Council (EUCO) summit on March 22nd 2019 (22/3/19).

There Britain was offered two options. A delay until May 22nd 2019 (22/5/19) on condition the elected house adopted the Withdrawal Agreement. Or a delay until April 12th 2019 (12/4/19) if it did not.

The British government failed to even attempt to accept the offer of a delay until May 22nd (22/5/19). Refusing to put the Withdrawal Agreement to the Commons for a third time.

This forced Britain to seek another delay of Leaving the EU on April 10th 2019 (10/4/19). This time until October 31st 2019 (31/1/0/19).

The House of Commons then went on very long holiday. Having driven the British economy into recession.

On Tuesday (3/9/19) the House of Commons finally returned to work.

The Labour MP Hilary Benn immediately attempted to force another delay to Britain Leaving the EU. Through the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill he sponsored.

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill was introduced to the Commons on Tuesday (3/9/19) evening. Receiving its first reading.

At around 5pm on Wednesday (4/9/19) Benn's Bill began its second reading. By around 8pm that same evening it had been adopted by the Commons.

That alone prevents Benn's Bill from ever becoming law.

It was introduced under a piece of Commons procedure known as; "Standing Order 24 (SO24)." This allows for emergency debates.

However SO24 does not allow for the introduction of legislation.

Parliament itself has already declared that the issue addressed by Benn's Bill doesn't constitute an emergency.

That Britain would leave the EU on October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) without a deal has been known since April 10th 2019 (10/4/19). Six months ago.

When the date of Britain's departure from the EU became known the Commons decided that it did not require urgent attention. Instead voting to go on holiday.

In order to become law a bill must pass through five stages in the Commons;

First Reading. Second Reading. Committee. Reporting. Third Reading.

All of these stages are independent of each other. They can only be held on five separate days.

The purpose is to allow for the proposed law to be given proper consideration. So it's effects can be researched and any unintended consequences can be identified and removed. This is particularly true of the Committee and Reporting stages.

To understand how outrageous the Commons behaviour has been in regards to Benn's Bill you only need to look at the Chinese city of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is currently undergoing its 14th straight weekend of mass protests. These protests began in earnest on June 9th 2019 (9/6/19).

They were triggered by the Second Reading of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 by Hong Kong's Legislative Council.

The First Reading of this so-called Extradition Bill had taken place on April 3rd 2019 (3/4/19).

The protesters main objection is that China is an anti-Democratic, Totalitarian state. However not even China would not go so far as the British House of Commons by holding multiple readings of a bill on the same day.

Fortunately Britain's House of Commons does not hold absolute power in the passing of British laws.

Throughout the Brexit debate Remain MP's have frequently screamed about; "The Sovereignty of Parliament!" That term does not mean what they are trying to convince people it does.

The Houses of Parliament are sovereign only in the sense that all houses in Britain are sovereign. They are free to go about their internal business without undue interference from the Crown.

For example the police, Her Majesty's Constabulary, can't just enter my house. Instead they must first obtain either my permission or the permission of a Judge issuing a Warrant of Search/Entry.

Likewise the police cannot just enter the House of Commons. Instead they must first obtain either the permission of the Commons own security, the Serjeant-at-Arms, or the permission of a Judge issuing a Warrant of Search/Entry.

The Sovereignty of Parliament most certainly does not give the Commons absolute power. To pass laws which affect all the other houses in Britain.

Instead in its legislative role the Commons, the lower house, exists as part of a wider system. A system designed to guard against exactly the sort of excesses we have seen in the Commons handling of the Benn Bill.

Once a bill has been adopted by the Commons it is sent to the upper house, the House of Lords. There is goes through a similar process of reading, review and votes.

Despite being adopted by the Commons on Wednesday (4/9/19) Benn's Bill was not set for consideration by the Lords until Friday (6/9/19). On Friday's both the Commons and the Lords only sit for half a day.

Therefore the Lords could not properly start work on Benn's Bill until Monday (9/9/19). That would make it impossible for it to be adopted by the Lords before Parliament shuts down for the Queen's Speech. On Thursday (12/9/19) at the latest.

Supporters of Benn's Bill launched a plot to have it considered by the Lords on Thursday (5/9/19). By forcing a session in the Lords in the very early hours of Thursday (5/9/19) morning. They also threatened to force the Lords to work throughout the weekend on Benn's Bill.

However even if they were successful in that effort long delays were still expected.

As you may have detected from;

The closure of the M4 Motorway at the Prince of Wales Bridge.

The closure of the M6 Motorway due to a Gin spillage.

The closure of the Northern Line of London's Underground Rail (Metro) system.

The closure of Scotland's Forth Bridge.

All of which occurred on Wednesday (4/9/19). The same day that Hong Kong's extradition bill was officially withdrawn.

So Benn's Bill would have died quietly in the Lords. Meaning the outrageous behaviour of the MP's would never have to be spoken of again.

Unfortunately immediately after Benn's Bill had been adopted by the Commons the Government introduced another motion on Wednesday (4/9/19). This called for a General Election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011.

Since the last General Election the Labour Party have been demanding a fresh General Election. Repeatedly voting against the Withdrawal Agreement to force that objective.

Throughout the Brexit process Remainers of all political parties have demanded the issue be put back to the voters. Repeatedly voting against the Withdrawal Agreement to force that objective.

On Wednesday (4/9/19) they suddenly decided that voters should not be given a say at all. Voting to block a General Election.

They claimed that they were only doing this to ensure that Benn's Bill would be passed into law. So in a spectacularly unwise decision the Government waved Benn's Bill through the Lords. In the hope of securing support in another vote on a General Election scheduled for Monday (9/9/19).

Needless to say Labour and the Remainers could not be trusted.

Benn's Bill was adopted by the Lords on Friday (6/9/19). Just in time for Labour and the Remainers to declare that they would not be voting for a General Election on Monday (9/9/19).

Suggesting there is, in fact, another reason why Labour and the Remainers are afraid of voters being allowed to have their say.

Having been adopted by the Lords Benn's Bill is now scheduled to go back to the Commons on Monday (9/9/19).

There the Commons must decide whether to scrap Benn's Bill or attempt to seek Royal Assent for it. The final safety valve in the system designed to protect Britain from crackpot laws.

It is very hard to see how Benn's Bill can ever receive Royal Assent and become law.

If is become law Benn's Bill will force the British government to seek a delay on Leaving the EU until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).

If the EU offers an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 Benn's Bill automatically signs Britain up to that delay. Regardless of what it may entail or how long it will be for.

This would entirely remove power from the hands of the British Parliament, Monarch and Voters. It would then place that power completely in the hands of the EU.

As a result Britain would cease to be a nation state. Instead it would become nothing more than an offshore colony of an EU superstate.

This is so extreme that the other 27 members of the EU are not even sure they want to be a superstate. Let alone one that annexes neighbouring islands just off the mainland.

Throughout the Brexit debate one of the main issues has been that of taking back control. Reclaiming the powers that Britain has already ceded to the EU.

As I've said that as a member of the EU the process of Britain passing new laws doesn't really involve British MP's at all.

The EU Parliament suggests a new law. The EU Council adopts that law. It then automatically becomes British law under the 1972 European Communities Act.

As such it might be difficult, on the surface at least, to see how Benn's Bill is different from the large amount of powers that have already been placed in the EU's hands.

The fact of the matter though is that British voters are represented in the EU Parliament.

The issue is that in the British Parliament British voters are represented by 650 MP's. British voters have 100% control over all of those 650 MP's.

In the EU Parliament British voters are represented by just 73 MEP's. Giving them less than 10% control over the 751 member chamber.

Also the EU Parliament doesn't actually have the power to pass laws. Instead it merely makes recommendations to the EU Council. Britain is one member of the 28 member EU Council.

Decisions of the EU Council are made by consensus. Meaning that, in theory at least, Britain has a veto over any proposed  new law.

It is not actually an EU requirement that new EU laws are passed automatically. Through a mechanism such as the 1972 European Communities Act. That is something Britain chooses to do.

This means that if Britain fails to veto a controversial new law at the EU Council it always has the option of repealing the 1972 Act. Meaning that Parliament would have to debate and pass or reject that new law. A refusal to pass would block the law going into effect across the EU.

Prior to Brexit one of the biggest things the EU did was the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The free trade deal with Canada.

CETA was adopted by the EU Council in October 2016. However CETA has still not gone into force. It has been blocked not by the national Parliament of Belgium but by one of the sub-national Parliaments of one of Belgium's regions.

Finally, if all else fails, Britain has always had the option of Leaving the EU to avoid adopting a controversial new law.

As part of the Brexit process Britain has been forced to give up its seat on the EU Council, except for matters relating to Brexit. Along with its seat Britain has given up its veto over proposed new laws.

For example Brexit was delayed at the EU Council summit in April 2019. Britain then left the summit.

However the EU Council then went on to adopt the European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The so-called Meme Law.

If Benn's Bill allows the EU to force Britain to remain a member until 2021 then Britain will have to adopt this EU Meme Law. Despite not being involved in its passing.

Repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act is now tied up with Brexit. It will only be repealed once Britain has exited the EU.

So Benn's Bill not only forces Britain to give up its veto over new EU laws. It also forces Britain to automatically adopt any and all new EU laws.

Benn's Bill of course also removes that final power Britain has to reject EU laws. Leaving the EU.

So Benn's Bill does not merely maintain the status quo of Britain's relationship with the EU. It forces Britain in to a substantially closer relationship with the EU. A relationship in which Britain is totally subservient.

It is akin to the Commons rushing through a bill which makes Britain America's 51st state. In defiance of a public referendum on the issue.

I don't think there would be even the slightest suggestion that such a bill would be granted Royal Assent and become law.

Likewise I don't think there is any suggestion that Benn's Bill will receive Royal Assent and become law.

Instead it should rejected and sent back to Hilary Benn.

To see if, having had his error pointed out, he can come up with language to avoid his unintended consequences.

Or at least what I hope are his unintended consequences.

11:02 on 9/9/19 (UK date).

 
  

Remain at it's Core.

On June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16) Britain held a referendum on whether it wished to Leave or Remain part of the European Union (EU).

This vote was the largest democratic exercise in British political history. 72% of 46.5 million registered voters participated.

It was larger even than the 1975 referendum on joining what would become the EU. There only 64% of 40 million registered voters participated.

Of those 46.5 million voters 17.4 million voted for Britain to Leave the EU.

This was not just a clear decision to Leave the EU. It was also a victory over the 17.3 million voters who voted for Britain to join the EU back in 1975.

Despite the growing population the total number of voters who wanted to be part of the EU actually fell between 1975 and 2016. From 17.3 million to 16.1 million.

On February 8th 2017 (8/2/17) the lower, elected house of Parliament, the House of Commons, finally voted overwhelmingly to accept the decision to the electorate. Passing the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 after months of opposition and delaying tactics.

The passing of the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 allowed the British government to formally notify the EU of its intention to leave. On March 29th 2017 (29/3/17).

The issuing of that formal notification triggered the start of a negotiation process over the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. Set to expire on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

In November 2018 the EU and Britain reached an agreement on the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. This was an extremely strong agreement which gave Britain unprecedentedly favourable terms.

That Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons on January 16th 2019 (16/1/19). It was rejected by MP's.

The Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons again on March 13th 2019 (13/3/19). Again it was rejected by MP's.

Having refused to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement twice the Commons forced the British government to seek a delay on leaving the EU. At the EU Council (EUCO) summit on March 22nd 2019 (22/3/19).

There Britain was offered two options. A delay until May 22nd 2019 (22/5/19) on condition the elected house adopted the Withdrawal Agreement. Or a delay until April 12th 2019 (12/4/19) if it did not.

The British government failed to even attempt to accept the offer of a delay until May 22nd (22/5/19). Refusing to put the Withdrawal Agreement to the Commons for a third time.

This forced Britain to seek another delay of Leaving the EU on April 10th 2019 (10/4/19). This time until October 31st 2019 (31/1/0/19).

This caused the government of then Prime Minister Theresa May to collapse. Being replaced by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the elected member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. 

As the House of Commons went on another very long holiday and the British economy was driven into recession.

Today (3/9/19) the House of Commons has returned. 

The Labour Party MP Hilary Benn is attempting to use this first day of Parliamentary business to force another delay to Britain Leaving the EU. Through the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill he is planning to introduce.

If adopted by the Commons Benn's Bill will force the British government to seek a delay on Leaving the EU until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).

If the EU offers the an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 Benn's Bill automatically signs Britain up to that delay. Regardless of what it may entail or how long it will be for.

So if passed Benn's Bill could force Britain to Remain part of the EU for the next 100 years. If that is what the EU decide.

Or, as is far more likely, Benn's Bill could force Britain to Remain part of the EU until the autumn of 2020. Forcing Britain to commit to the EU's next seven year budget cycle. Lasting until 2027.

That Britain's Parliament would even consider such a motion is highly legally, constitutionally and morally problematic.

If passed Benn's blank cheque would entirely remove power from the hands of British voters. It would then place that power completely in the hands of the, unelected to Britain, EU Council.

This is so shocking it is hard not to draw a comparison. A comparison with the Hong Kong Executive inviting troops to cross from the mainland in order to crush protesters calling for democracy.

In introducing this obscene bill Hilary Benn has exposed the true reason why Britain's MP's are so opposed to Leaving the EU at its most naked.

Britain's lawmakers are desperate to Remain in the EU for one simple reason. Membership of the EU helps them hide from voters the fact that they are simply not capable of doing the jobs for which they are so handsomely paid.

Since Britain became a member of the EU the process by which British laws are passed has been incredibly simple;

The EU Parliament suggests a law. The EU Council then adopts the law. This then becomes a British law under the European Communities Act of 1972.

This is an entirely automatic process in which British MP's have no involvement.

Once the law has been passed by the EU British MP's simply look up from filing their expenses claims to boast to voters about what they have 'achieved.' In the hope of being reappointed to the gravy train for another five years.

This is exactly what is happening with Benn's Bill.

British MP's have failed to convince voters that there is a need to Remain in the EU. They have failed to bring down the government. They have thankfully failed to block Britain Leaving the EU.

Aside from the recession they have failed to achieve anything at all.

So now they're relying entirely on the EU to once again do their jobs for them.





 
11:30 on 3/9/19 (UK date).