Today in Britain marks Remembrance Sunday.
A tradition which began at the end of the First World War. Supposedly The War to End All Wars this came to an end at the 11th hour of the 11 day of the 11th month. November 11th 1918 (11/11/18).
Declaring themselves the winner of this Great War the Britain and its Empire held a victory parade through central London. On July 19th 1919 (19/7/19).
Part of that parade's route featured a Cenotaph or "Empty Tomb." A wood and plaster sculpture to honour the unknown dead. Those of the some 10 million combatants killed who died without ever being identified.
By design the Cenotaph is free from all religious symbols. To reflect that it is not just the final resting place of European Christians. But also of countless Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of all other religions and none.
In December 1919 this monument to the unknown dead was taken down and placed in a museum. As the leaders who had ordered the war tried to return to business as usual and forget.
A British public which had seen an entire generation of young men lost were not prepared to let them off so easily. They insisted that the Cenotaph be rebuilt in its original location. From 120 tonnes of stone.
They also demanded that every year Britain's leaders return to that spot. To stand in silence and think. About what they had done. Of all the people they had sent out knowing that many of them would never return.
Over the course of the five year war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) I have come to feel an affinity for those forced to gather at the Cenotaph. Something which is particularly true of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) and their small International Brigade.
From the comfort and safety of my home I have cheered countless times as the SDF have been sent off to battle ISIL. Knowing full well that many of those being sent out would never return.
My only consolation is the surety that they too knew that they would not return. That they were being sent out to die.
Yet they went out anyway.
America and its leaders have declared that the war has been won. Twitter has ruled that I can play no further part in it.
Yet, despite these efforts to forget and return to business as usual, the list of those who will never return continues to grow.
In this past year these are the members of the SDF's International Brigade who will not return.
Lorenzo Orsetti; Aged 33, from Italy. Killed by ISIL fire during the Battle of the Hajin Pocket. March 18th 2019 (18/3/19).
Konstantin Gedig; Aged 24, from Germany. Killed by Turkish fire while resisting the invasion of Gire Spi/Tel Abyad. October 16th 2019 (16/10/19).
Zau Seng; Age Unknown, from Myanmar/Burma. Killed by Turkish fire on the town of Tel Tamr. November 3rd 2019 (3/11/19).
A Member of the Free Burma Rangers medical corp.
In this past year these are the members of Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOR) that did not return.
Chief Warrant Officer Jonathan Farmer; US Army. Aged 37, from Florida. Killed in an ISIL suicide attack in Manbij. January 16th 2019 (16/1/19).
Snr Chief Petty Officer Shannon Kent; US Navy. Aged 35, from New York State. Killed in an ISIL suicide attack in Manbij. January 16th 2019 (16/1/19).
Private First Class Michael Thomason; US Army. Aged 28, from Michigan. Killed by suspected Turkish fire in Kobane. April 28th 2019 (28/4/19).
Among with many other Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and Russians.
10:15 on 10/11/19 (UK date).
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Monday, 28 October 2019
Operation Featherweight: Month 64, Week 5, Day 1.
In the spring of 2019 the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were on the verge of total defeat. In both Syria and Iraq.
This apparently was too much of a trauma for Twitter to bear.
So they blocked by account. Cutting me off from my contacts in the region. Not that I'm even happy to confirm that I have contacts. It does, after all, appear to be quite a risky part of the World.
In recent weeks though the conflict in Syria has once again started to be reported on in the western media. Forcing them to break with a longstanding policy that if they have to report the truth they'd rather not report on it at all.
As a result I can confirm that the conflict in Syria continues to be divided into five main areas of operations. Reading from left-to-right;
Shangri-La, Garvaghy Road, Afrin Canton, the Sudetenland and Central Syria.
Shangri-La: This is located in the north-east of Syria. Essentially it is everything to the north-east of the Euphrates River.
Shangri-La is under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) coalition.
The largest element of the SDF coalition is the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Who are predominately Muslim. They operate alongside Assyrian/Syriac Christian, Turkmen and Arab Muslim forces.
The Arab element makes up around 50% of the SDF. It is comprised of both elements of the long defunct Free Syrian Army (FSA) and local tribes indigenous to north-eastern Syria.
The SDF also contains a small International Brigade made up of foreign volunteers.
Over the past five years the SDF has been begrudgingly supported by the US-led coalition. Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR).
I remember having to drag former US President Barack Obama kicking and screaming into the Battle of Kobane in the winter of 2014. A posture Obama maintained whenever it came to fighting ISIL.
Garvaghy Road: This sits directly to the west of Shangri-La where the Euphrates River enters Syria from Turkey a Jarablus. It's stretches roughly 100km (60 miles) from the Euphrates to the towns of Kilis/Azaz.
It was invaded by Turkey in August 2016 and remains under the illegal occupation of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Those regular Turkish forces command an irregular force known that the United Turkmen Army (UTA). Sometimes referred to as the Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB).
The UTA are formed out of the paramilitary wing of the proudly fascist Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) who are known as the Grey Wolves. They take their brigade names from famous Ottoman Emperors such as Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror.
Amid fighting in other areas of Syria the UTA has expanded to include extreme Islamist factions of the long fragmented FSA. Most notably The Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya (Ahrar al-Sham) and The Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI).
The Army of Islam are famous for being far more extreme than ISIL. In fact they have executed members of ISIL for being too moderate in their pursuit of genocide.
Afrin Canton: Centred around the city of Afrin this roughly 2,400kmsq (1,400 milesq) area directly borders Garvaghy Road to the west.
Historically an ethnically Kurdish area of Syria Afrin Canton has been under the control of first the YPG and then the SDF since the conflict began in 2011.
However in January 2018 Afrin Canton was invaded by Turkey and remains under the illegal occupation of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
As within Garvaghy Road those regular Turkish forces command an irregular UTA force. Including Ahrar al-Sham and the Army of Islam.
The Sudetenland: This area sits directly south of Afrin Canton. It crosses parts of both Idlib Province and Hama Province. It is centred around the city of Idlib.
It's name refers to Nazi Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in 1938. Under the guise of a humanitarian intervention.
Prior to January 2019 control of the Sudetenland was shared between the UTA and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham/Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant (HTS).
HTS simply being the latest name used by Al Qaeda/The Base (AQ) in Syria. Alongside new recruits, both Syrian and foreign, the group also contains original, core Al Qaeda fighters. Including the Turkistan Islamist Party (TiP).
In January 2019 the UTA and HTS reached a Turkish brokered agreement. Which saw the UTA withdraw to Afrin Canton and HTS take complete control over the Sudetenland.
Since October 2017 Al Qaeda have been protected in the Sudetenland by the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
This has been achieved by the TSK establishing a network of small military bases known as; "Control Points" or "Observation Posts." Over time that network of Turkish Control Points has expanded to 18.
Central Syria: The southern border of the Sudetenland marks the start of a vast area under the control of the Syrian government.
It really includes all parts of the country which are not otherwise designated. I would refer to it simply as; "Syria" only that would cause more confusion by implying the other areas are not part of Syria.
The liberation of Central Syria was the result of a nearly year long anti-ISIL operation by the Syrians. In both the north and the south of the country this saw them advance from west to east.
In the north of the country the Syrians set out from Aleppo City in May 2017. By late July 2017 this northern axis had arrived at and liberated the town of Dalhah which sits on the southern bank of the Euphrates.
To the south of the country the Syrians set out from the Syrian capital Damascus. Also in May 2017. By early June 2017 this southern axis had reached the border between Syria and Iraq at the town of al-Tanf.
From al-Tanf the Syrians then advanced on the city of Palmyra which sits almost exactly in the centre of Syria. Palmyra had been liberated from ISIL by the Syrians in March 2017.
In August 2017 Syrian forces from both Palmyra and Dalhah converged on the town of as-Suknah. From there they began the operation to liberate the southern banks of the Euphrates.
In December 2017 the Syrians liberated Al Boukamal/Abu Kamal which sits on the Euphrates as it enters Iraq from Syia. This allowed them to declare the southern bank of the Euphrates fully liberated from ISIL.
There remained though two areas still outside of Syrian control.
Firstly the East Ghouta suburb of the capital Damascus, the Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian Refugees and the East Qalamoun Mountain area. Including the al-Safa Volcanic Plateau.
Secondly the Yarmouk River Basin area. The area in the basin of the Yarmouk River in the very south-west of Syria. It includes Daraa Province, Quneitra Province and As-Suwayda Province.
In late February 2018 the Syrians launched an operation to liberate the East Ghouta suburb, the Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian Refugees and the East Qalamoun Mountains. This succeeded in its objective with ISIL's surrender at the Safa Plateau in November 2018.
In June 2018 the Syrians launched an operation to liberate the Yarmouk River Basin area. This was completed in August 2018. Following the surrender of ISIL's Jaish al-Khalid Ibn al-Walid/Army of Khalid Ibn al-Walid.
Within the Central Syria area though there continues to be one small area outside of Syrian control.
A US base close to the town of al-Tanf. This used to be designated; "Bobby Sands" but due to Brexit concerns has been re-designated; "Dollywood."
Dollywood: This base was established by CJTFOIR to train a coalition of forces known as the Southern Front.
Initially to assist ISIL in overthrowing the Syrian government. Then as potential corridor to link the SDF in Shangri-La with anti-ISIL forces in the Central Syria area.
The Syrians liberation of al-Tanf in June 2017 however rendered the Dollywood base strategically void. Causing CJTFOIR forces to withdraw.
US troops though continues to operate the Dollywood base. Where they house an Islamist fragment of the now defunct Southern Front, the Islamist Revolutionary Commando Army/Maghawir al-Thawra (MaT).
The US' reasoning behind clinging onto the Dollywood base is that it sits on a border crossing between Iraq and Syria. With the M2 Highway linking the Iraqi capital Baghdad to the Syrian capital Damascus.
The US think that continuing to control al-Tanf border crossing will prevent Iran from supplying Lebanese Hezbollah with weapons. Via road across Iraq and Syria.
That is of course is an absolute strategic idiocy.
Shutting down a single road junction does not cripple an entire nation's road network. Otherwise every country would grind to a halt every time there's a car crash. Plus the al-Tanf border crossing can be completely controlled from the Iraqi side of the border.
The refusal to withdraw US troops from Dollywood is now actually one of the few things keeping ISIL alive in Syria.
In order to protect the Dollywood base the US has imposed a roughly 11,500kmsq (6,900 milesq) exclusion zone around it.
This US imposed exclusion zone includes the Ruqban Camp for Internally Displaced People (IDP's). Control of which is shared between ISIL and Maghawir al-Thawra (MaT). The Islamist group trained and supported by the US.
ISIL are able to use the civilian population of the Ruqban Camp as both human shields and as a revenue producing tax base. ISIL are also able to use the area as a base to conduct operations against the Syrians across the Syrian desert/Badiya al-Sham.
Syrian forces are not able to enter the US imposed exclusion zone around Dollywood to combat ISIL. The US force at Dollywood is too small to combat ISIL. Not that they seem to possess any desire to do so.
It is telling that when ISIL surrendered both in the Yarmouk River basin and at the Safa Plateau they asked to be transferred to Dollywood. Where they could rely on US protection.
Amid all the recent hokey-poky around bringing US troops back from Syria the US refuses to even entertain the idea of closing the Dollywood base.
The most recent developments in Syria have occurred in the Shangri-La area.
On October 6th 2019 (6/10/19) US President Donald Trump abandoned the SDF.
He gave Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan permission to illegally invade and occupy a 35km (20 mile) deep, 420km (250 mile) wide area in the north of Shangri-La.
This roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) zone has been designated; Danzig.
Which, after all, is what tends to get invaded once the Sudetenland has been annexed.
It would be nice to pretend that there was some grand strategic thought behind US President Trump's decision. The sad fact of the matter though is that he simply threw a childish tantrum.
Frustrated by what are very minor domestic political challenges Trump decided that work was beneath.
Particularly the tiny bit of work he would personally have to do.
Telling Erdogan that he has to adhere to the Charter of the United Nations. The barest minimum international legal commitment for Turkey to be considered a nation state.
Erdogan's illegal invasion and occupation began on October 9th 2019 (9/10/19).
Just as had happened in the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas it was led by the regular Turkish Military (TSK). With the support of the irregular United Turkmen Army. Including the extremely vicious, Islamist Jaish al-Islam/Army of Islam.
By October 17th 2019 (17/10/19) Erdogan's forces had reached the M4 Highway. Which stretches across the north of the Shangri-La area.
They had done this on two axis;
The first saw them enter Shangri-La in line with the town of Gire Spi/Tel Abyad. This sits around 75km (45 miles) east of where the Euphrates enters Syria from Turkey.
The second saw them enter Shangri-La in line with the town of Serekanyie/Ras al-Ayn. This sits around 105km (60 miles) east of Gire Spi/Tel Abyad. Around 180km (110 miles) east of where the Euphrates enters Syria from Turkey.
Both Gire Spi/Tel Abyad and Serekanyie/Ras al-Ayn and their surrounding villages were captured by Erdogan's forces as part of the invasion.
Erdogan then declared a 120 hour pause in operations. The purpose being for the SDF to withdraw from the Danzig zone.
This 120 hour pause was nothing more than an effort by US President Trump to further protect Erdogan. From comprehensive sanctions that are/were being introduced by the US Congress.
With US President Trump being completely unwilling to prevent the invasion of Danzig it fell to Russia, Iran and Syria to fill the vacuum. As has so often being the case in supposedly global fight against ISIL.
Russia and Turkey met, in Russia, to discuss the issue on October 22nd 2019 (22/10/19)
Sadly with the US still failing to impose meaningful sanctions on Turkey Russia was limited in what it could do.
Following a further 150 hour pause, to allow the SDF to withdraw, Russia agreed to allow Erdogan to fully establish his 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) Danzig zone. Under the control of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and the irregular United Turkmen Army (UTA).
The only concession being that Russia would also conduct patrols within the Danzig zone. Which historians will probably agree sounds appropriate.
Erdogan's stated aim in creating this Danzig zone is to cleanse it of its indigenous Kurdish population. Replacing them with Turks and Arabs.
A repetition of the Arabization policies of successive Syrian governments and of Turkey's actions in both the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas.
This is a clear example of Ethnic Cleansing. A high Crime Against Humanity under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of 1998.
Aside from its horrifying humanitarian implications the strategic failure of allowing Erdogan to establish this Danzig zone should be obvious to all.
Particularly now what Erdogan means by; "Safe Zone" has been called into sharp focus by this weekend's Operation Mueller.
Operation Mueller: This is the US Special Operations Force (SOF) raid to capture, kill or definitely kill Ibrahim Ali al-Badri.
More commonly known by his pseudonym Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Who took over from Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Hamid al-Zawi). The founder of ISIL.
Officially the mission was named in honour of Kayla Mueller. An American woman who was taken hostage and ultimately executed by ISIL.
The raid took place over the night of October 26th 2019 (26/10/19). Into the morning of October 27th 2019 (27/10/19). It was carried out against an ISIL compound close to the Syrian village of Bashira.
Sitting in the foothills of Mount Bashira the village is located in the Sudetenland area of Syria.
It stands around 6km (4 miles) south of Syria's border with Turkey.
It also stands around 10km (6 miles) south-west of the Atmeh-Salwa Access Area. Which marks the dividing line between the Sudetenland area and the Afrin Canton areas.
This Atmeh-Salwa Access Area is the first place that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) established their network of Control Points. Starting in October 2017. It remains the most densely populated area of these Turkish bases.
Due to the 2012 US raid to kill Osama bin Laden I think we all have a vague idea of what a SOF raid involves. Roughly two dozen operators flying in by helicopter onto a target under cover of darkness.
This has certainly become a very familiar phenomenon in the Shangri-La area. A couple of mysterious helicopters fly in. There's a short but intense exchange of gunfire. Then the helicopters mysteriously disappear again.
What movies like; "Zero Dark Thirty" often forget to mention though is that these two dozen operators are backed by a Quick Reaction Force (QRF). A sort of 911 the SOF's can call upon if things start to go wrong.
The composition of a QRF is very much mission specific. An Iraqi QRF was actually deployed in the Battle of Mosul. It fought a weeks long mechanised campaign in the western half of the city.
Generally though a QRF is made up of around 100 Commando troops. Deployed from large rotary wing aircraft. Like a Chinook or Osprey. They are backed by multiple helicopter gunships. Such as the Apache.
They can also be backed by fixed wing gunships. Something like Spectre, Spooky or Ghostrider gunship. An AC-130 Hercules equipped with a 20mm rotary cannon (minigun), a 40mm cannon and a 105mm howitzer. Basically a flying artillery battalion.
A US QRF can also call on traditional air support. Fighter jets capable of dropping Paveway bombs and Hellfire missiles.
Operation Mueller saw a battalion of Commando forces deployed in eight large rotary wing aircraft. Backed by Apache and AC-130 gunships. It ended with the ISIL compound being bombed into dust.
So initially it looked as though the SOF raid had failed. Causing the QRF to be deployed.
It turns out though that while it was led by SOF's Operation Mueller was actually planned as a commando raid. Simply the military planners had decided to go in that hard as their starting point. Which does make you wonder what the QRF option was.
The reason for this decision was that the raid was being carried out against a large, heavily fortified ISIL compound. Complete with multiple rings of defences and a complex, underground bunker system.
Once al-Badri/al-Baghdadi had been killed and its forces successfully withdrawn the US then bombed the large, heavily fortified ISIL compound. To destroy it and prevent it from being used by ISIL or any other armed group.
The large, heavily fortified ISIL compound which stood around 6km (4 miles) from the Turkish border and around 10km (6 miles) from a Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) base.
In one of Erdogan's "Safe Zones."
19:50 on 28/10/19 (UK date).
This apparently was too much of a trauma for Twitter to bear.
So they blocked by account. Cutting me off from my contacts in the region. Not that I'm even happy to confirm that I have contacts. It does, after all, appear to be quite a risky part of the World.
In recent weeks though the conflict in Syria has once again started to be reported on in the western media. Forcing them to break with a longstanding policy that if they have to report the truth they'd rather not report on it at all.
As a result I can confirm that the conflict in Syria continues to be divided into five main areas of operations. Reading from left-to-right;
Shangri-La, Garvaghy Road, Afrin Canton, the Sudetenland and Central Syria.
Shangri-La: This is located in the north-east of Syria. Essentially it is everything to the north-east of the Euphrates River.
Shangri-La is under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) coalition.
The largest element of the SDF coalition is the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Who are predominately Muslim. They operate alongside Assyrian/Syriac Christian, Turkmen and Arab Muslim forces.
The Arab element makes up around 50% of the SDF. It is comprised of both elements of the long defunct Free Syrian Army (FSA) and local tribes indigenous to north-eastern Syria.
The SDF also contains a small International Brigade made up of foreign volunteers.
Over the past five years the SDF has been begrudgingly supported by the US-led coalition. Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR).
I remember having to drag former US President Barack Obama kicking and screaming into the Battle of Kobane in the winter of 2014. A posture Obama maintained whenever it came to fighting ISIL.
Garvaghy Road: This sits directly to the west of Shangri-La where the Euphrates River enters Syria from Turkey a Jarablus. It's stretches roughly 100km (60 miles) from the Euphrates to the towns of Kilis/Azaz.
It was invaded by Turkey in August 2016 and remains under the illegal occupation of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Those regular Turkish forces command an irregular force known that the United Turkmen Army (UTA). Sometimes referred to as the Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB).
The UTA are formed out of the paramilitary wing of the proudly fascist Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) who are known as the Grey Wolves. They take their brigade names from famous Ottoman Emperors such as Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror.
Amid fighting in other areas of Syria the UTA has expanded to include extreme Islamist factions of the long fragmented FSA. Most notably The Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya (Ahrar al-Sham) and The Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI).
The Army of Islam are famous for being far more extreme than ISIL. In fact they have executed members of ISIL for being too moderate in their pursuit of genocide.
Afrin Canton: Centred around the city of Afrin this roughly 2,400kmsq (1,400 milesq) area directly borders Garvaghy Road to the west.
Historically an ethnically Kurdish area of Syria Afrin Canton has been under the control of first the YPG and then the SDF since the conflict began in 2011.
However in January 2018 Afrin Canton was invaded by Turkey and remains under the illegal occupation of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
As within Garvaghy Road those regular Turkish forces command an irregular UTA force. Including Ahrar al-Sham and the Army of Islam.
The Sudetenland: This area sits directly south of Afrin Canton. It crosses parts of both Idlib Province and Hama Province. It is centred around the city of Idlib.
It's name refers to Nazi Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in 1938. Under the guise of a humanitarian intervention.
Prior to January 2019 control of the Sudetenland was shared between the UTA and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham/Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant (HTS).
HTS simply being the latest name used by Al Qaeda/The Base (AQ) in Syria. Alongside new recruits, both Syrian and foreign, the group also contains original, core Al Qaeda fighters. Including the Turkistan Islamist Party (TiP).
In January 2019 the UTA and HTS reached a Turkish brokered agreement. Which saw the UTA withdraw to Afrin Canton and HTS take complete control over the Sudetenland.
Since October 2017 Al Qaeda have been protected in the Sudetenland by the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).
This has been achieved by the TSK establishing a network of small military bases known as; "Control Points" or "Observation Posts." Over time that network of Turkish Control Points has expanded to 18.
Central Syria: The southern border of the Sudetenland marks the start of a vast area under the control of the Syrian government.
It really includes all parts of the country which are not otherwise designated. I would refer to it simply as; "Syria" only that would cause more confusion by implying the other areas are not part of Syria.
The liberation of Central Syria was the result of a nearly year long anti-ISIL operation by the Syrians. In both the north and the south of the country this saw them advance from west to east.
In the north of the country the Syrians set out from Aleppo City in May 2017. By late July 2017 this northern axis had arrived at and liberated the town of Dalhah which sits on the southern bank of the Euphrates.
To the south of the country the Syrians set out from the Syrian capital Damascus. Also in May 2017. By early June 2017 this southern axis had reached the border between Syria and Iraq at the town of al-Tanf.
From al-Tanf the Syrians then advanced on the city of Palmyra which sits almost exactly in the centre of Syria. Palmyra had been liberated from ISIL by the Syrians in March 2017.
In August 2017 Syrian forces from both Palmyra and Dalhah converged on the town of as-Suknah. From there they began the operation to liberate the southern banks of the Euphrates.
In December 2017 the Syrians liberated Al Boukamal/Abu Kamal which sits on the Euphrates as it enters Iraq from Syia. This allowed them to declare the southern bank of the Euphrates fully liberated from ISIL.
There remained though two areas still outside of Syrian control.
Firstly the East Ghouta suburb of the capital Damascus, the Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian Refugees and the East Qalamoun Mountain area. Including the al-Safa Volcanic Plateau.
Secondly the Yarmouk River Basin area. The area in the basin of the Yarmouk River in the very south-west of Syria. It includes Daraa Province, Quneitra Province and As-Suwayda Province.
In late February 2018 the Syrians launched an operation to liberate the East Ghouta suburb, the Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian Refugees and the East Qalamoun Mountains. This succeeded in its objective with ISIL's surrender at the Safa Plateau in November 2018.
In June 2018 the Syrians launched an operation to liberate the Yarmouk River Basin area. This was completed in August 2018. Following the surrender of ISIL's Jaish al-Khalid Ibn al-Walid/Army of Khalid Ibn al-Walid.
Within the Central Syria area though there continues to be one small area outside of Syrian control.
A US base close to the town of al-Tanf. This used to be designated; "Bobby Sands" but due to Brexit concerns has been re-designated; "Dollywood."
Dollywood: This base was established by CJTFOIR to train a coalition of forces known as the Southern Front.
Initially to assist ISIL in overthrowing the Syrian government. Then as potential corridor to link the SDF in Shangri-La with anti-ISIL forces in the Central Syria area.
The Syrians liberation of al-Tanf in June 2017 however rendered the Dollywood base strategically void. Causing CJTFOIR forces to withdraw.
US troops though continues to operate the Dollywood base. Where they house an Islamist fragment of the now defunct Southern Front, the Islamist Revolutionary Commando Army/Maghawir al-Thawra (MaT).
The US' reasoning behind clinging onto the Dollywood base is that it sits on a border crossing between Iraq and Syria. With the M2 Highway linking the Iraqi capital Baghdad to the Syrian capital Damascus.
The US think that continuing to control al-Tanf border crossing will prevent Iran from supplying Lebanese Hezbollah with weapons. Via road across Iraq and Syria.
That is of course is an absolute strategic idiocy.
Shutting down a single road junction does not cripple an entire nation's road network. Otherwise every country would grind to a halt every time there's a car crash. Plus the al-Tanf border crossing can be completely controlled from the Iraqi side of the border.
The refusal to withdraw US troops from Dollywood is now actually one of the few things keeping ISIL alive in Syria.
In order to protect the Dollywood base the US has imposed a roughly 11,500kmsq (6,900 milesq) exclusion zone around it.
This US imposed exclusion zone includes the Ruqban Camp for Internally Displaced People (IDP's). Control of which is shared between ISIL and Maghawir al-Thawra (MaT). The Islamist group trained and supported by the US.
ISIL are able to use the civilian population of the Ruqban Camp as both human shields and as a revenue producing tax base. ISIL are also able to use the area as a base to conduct operations against the Syrians across the Syrian desert/Badiya al-Sham.
Syrian forces are not able to enter the US imposed exclusion zone around Dollywood to combat ISIL. The US force at Dollywood is too small to combat ISIL. Not that they seem to possess any desire to do so.
It is telling that when ISIL surrendered both in the Yarmouk River basin and at the Safa Plateau they asked to be transferred to Dollywood. Where they could rely on US protection.
Amid all the recent hokey-poky around bringing US troops back from Syria the US refuses to even entertain the idea of closing the Dollywood base.
The most recent developments in Syria have occurred in the Shangri-La area.
On October 6th 2019 (6/10/19) US President Donald Trump abandoned the SDF.
He gave Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan permission to illegally invade and occupy a 35km (20 mile) deep, 420km (250 mile) wide area in the north of Shangri-La.
This roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) zone has been designated; Danzig.
Which, after all, is what tends to get invaded once the Sudetenland has been annexed.
It would be nice to pretend that there was some grand strategic thought behind US President Trump's decision. The sad fact of the matter though is that he simply threw a childish tantrum.
Frustrated by what are very minor domestic political challenges Trump decided that work was beneath.
Particularly the tiny bit of work he would personally have to do.
Telling Erdogan that he has to adhere to the Charter of the United Nations. The barest minimum international legal commitment for Turkey to be considered a nation state.
Erdogan's illegal invasion and occupation began on October 9th 2019 (9/10/19).
Just as had happened in the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas it was led by the regular Turkish Military (TSK). With the support of the irregular United Turkmen Army. Including the extremely vicious, Islamist Jaish al-Islam/Army of Islam.
By October 17th 2019 (17/10/19) Erdogan's forces had reached the M4 Highway. Which stretches across the north of the Shangri-La area.
They had done this on two axis;
The first saw them enter Shangri-La in line with the town of Gire Spi/Tel Abyad. This sits around 75km (45 miles) east of where the Euphrates enters Syria from Turkey.
The second saw them enter Shangri-La in line with the town of Serekanyie/Ras al-Ayn. This sits around 105km (60 miles) east of Gire Spi/Tel Abyad. Around 180km (110 miles) east of where the Euphrates enters Syria from Turkey.
Both Gire Spi/Tel Abyad and Serekanyie/Ras al-Ayn and their surrounding villages were captured by Erdogan's forces as part of the invasion.
Erdogan then declared a 120 hour pause in operations. The purpose being for the SDF to withdraw from the Danzig zone.
This 120 hour pause was nothing more than an effort by US President Trump to further protect Erdogan. From comprehensive sanctions that are/were being introduced by the US Congress.
With US President Trump being completely unwilling to prevent the invasion of Danzig it fell to Russia, Iran and Syria to fill the vacuum. As has so often being the case in supposedly global fight against ISIL.
Russia and Turkey met, in Russia, to discuss the issue on October 22nd 2019 (22/10/19)
Sadly with the US still failing to impose meaningful sanctions on Turkey Russia was limited in what it could do.
Following a further 150 hour pause, to allow the SDF to withdraw, Russia agreed to allow Erdogan to fully establish his 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) Danzig zone. Under the control of the regular Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and the irregular United Turkmen Army (UTA).
The only concession being that Russia would also conduct patrols within the Danzig zone. Which historians will probably agree sounds appropriate.
Erdogan's stated aim in creating this Danzig zone is to cleanse it of its indigenous Kurdish population. Replacing them with Turks and Arabs.
A repetition of the Arabization policies of successive Syrian governments and of Turkey's actions in both the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas.
This is a clear example of Ethnic Cleansing. A high Crime Against Humanity under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of 1998.
Aside from its horrifying humanitarian implications the strategic failure of allowing Erdogan to establish this Danzig zone should be obvious to all.
Particularly now what Erdogan means by; "Safe Zone" has been called into sharp focus by this weekend's Operation Mueller.
Operation Mueller: This is the US Special Operations Force (SOF) raid to capture, kill or definitely kill Ibrahim Ali al-Badri.
More commonly known by his pseudonym Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Who took over from Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Hamid al-Zawi). The founder of ISIL.
Officially the mission was named in honour of Kayla Mueller. An American woman who was taken hostage and ultimately executed by ISIL.
The raid took place over the night of October 26th 2019 (26/10/19). Into the morning of October 27th 2019 (27/10/19). It was carried out against an ISIL compound close to the Syrian village of Bashira.
Sitting in the foothills of Mount Bashira the village is located in the Sudetenland area of Syria.
It stands around 6km (4 miles) south of Syria's border with Turkey.
It also stands around 10km (6 miles) south-west of the Atmeh-Salwa Access Area. Which marks the dividing line between the Sudetenland area and the Afrin Canton areas.
This Atmeh-Salwa Access Area is the first place that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) established their network of Control Points. Starting in October 2017. It remains the most densely populated area of these Turkish bases.
Due to the 2012 US raid to kill Osama bin Laden I think we all have a vague idea of what a SOF raid involves. Roughly two dozen operators flying in by helicopter onto a target under cover of darkness.
This has certainly become a very familiar phenomenon in the Shangri-La area. A couple of mysterious helicopters fly in. There's a short but intense exchange of gunfire. Then the helicopters mysteriously disappear again.
What movies like; "Zero Dark Thirty" often forget to mention though is that these two dozen operators are backed by a Quick Reaction Force (QRF). A sort of 911 the SOF's can call upon if things start to go wrong.
The composition of a QRF is very much mission specific. An Iraqi QRF was actually deployed in the Battle of Mosul. It fought a weeks long mechanised campaign in the western half of the city.
Generally though a QRF is made up of around 100 Commando troops. Deployed from large rotary wing aircraft. Like a Chinook or Osprey. They are backed by multiple helicopter gunships. Such as the Apache.
They can also be backed by fixed wing gunships. Something like Spectre, Spooky or Ghostrider gunship. An AC-130 Hercules equipped with a 20mm rotary cannon (minigun), a 40mm cannon and a 105mm howitzer. Basically a flying artillery battalion.
A US QRF can also call on traditional air support. Fighter jets capable of dropping Paveway bombs and Hellfire missiles.
Operation Mueller saw a battalion of Commando forces deployed in eight large rotary wing aircraft. Backed by Apache and AC-130 gunships. It ended with the ISIL compound being bombed into dust.
So initially it looked as though the SOF raid had failed. Causing the QRF to be deployed.
It turns out though that while it was led by SOF's Operation Mueller was actually planned as a commando raid. Simply the military planners had decided to go in that hard as their starting point. Which does make you wonder what the QRF option was.
The reason for this decision was that the raid was being carried out against a large, heavily fortified ISIL compound. Complete with multiple rings of defences and a complex, underground bunker system.
Once al-Badri/al-Baghdadi had been killed and its forces successfully withdrawn the US then bombed the large, heavily fortified ISIL compound. To destroy it and prevent it from being used by ISIL or any other armed group.
The large, heavily fortified ISIL compound which stood around 6km (4 miles) from the Turkish border and around 10km (6 miles) from a Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) base.
In one of Erdogan's "Safe Zones."
19:50 on 28/10/19 (UK date).
Wednesday, 23 October 2019
The Letter Boris Should Now Sign.
In June 2016 the British people voted to Leave the European Union (EU). In the largest democratic exercise to ever take place in the UK.
In the three years since then a group of roughly 300 British MP's have tried to thwart this Brexit. Desperate to keep Britain within the EU. At any cost.
Their latest wheeze has been The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill.
Authored by Labour's Hilary Benn this is sometimes known as the Benn Bill, the Benn Act or the Act of Surrender.
Regardless of what it is called it reveals the reason why those 300 MP's are desperate to keep Britain within the EU.
Since Britain joined what became the EU in British MP's or lawmakers have had very little role in making British laws.
Instead new laws are recommended by the EU Parliament. Introduced by the EU Commission. Then passed by the EU Council. Finally they are automatically turned into British laws through the mechanism of the European Communities Act of 1972.
So it hasn't mattered if British MP's are complete failures at representing the interests of the British people. The EU will always been on hand to bail them out and let them keep picking up the pay cheques.
Over the course of the last, nearly 50 years, this absence of responsibility has created a current crop of British MP's who are simply lacking the talent and skills needed to draft and pass even basic legislation.
The Benn Bill is a prime example of this complete lack of ability.
The intention of the Benn Bill was to maintain the status quo. To keep Britain's relationship with the EU the same. Regardless of what voters may think.
Instead though it dramatically alters Britain's relationship with the EU. Significantly removing power from the British Monarch, Parliament and voters and placing it in the hands of the EU.
For example it surrenders Britain's power to select the EU Commissioners who introduce new laws.
It surrenders Britain's power to veto the passing of those new laws by the EU Council.
It surrenders Britain's power to prevent those new EU laws becoming British laws by revoking the 1972 European Communities Act.
Something which is now tied to Britain leaving the EU. If Brexit is delayed then the European Communities Act remains in force for the duration of any extension.
The Benn Bill also, obviously, surrenders Britain's power to Leave the EU.
By surrendering Britain's power to Leave the EU the Benn Bill also surrenders Britain's ability to veto the next EU budget. Let alone Britain's right not to contribute to that EU budget.
Negotiations over the next EU budget cycle begin, really, on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). Once committed to that new budget cycle will last until 2028.
Despite surrendering all of these British powers to the EU the Benn Bill still manages to fail in its primary objective. To extend Britain's membership of the EU until, at least, January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).
Although it requires Britain to seek an extension it also requires Britain to attach conditions to that extension. In order to protect Britain's interests. It is impossible for the EU to meet those conditions.
Take for example the issue of EU Commissioners. Particularly the President of the EU Commission.
In May 2019 elections were held for the EU Parliament. One of the new EU Parliament's first tasks would be to confirm the EU Commissioners appointed by the existing EU Council.
The EU attempted to add the illusion of democracy to this process. By nominating to candidates for the President of the EU Commission. So the pro-EU left nominated Frans Timmermans while the pro-EU right nominated Jan Zahradil.
These two candidates then fought something of a faux election campaign, complete with televised debates, alongside the EU Parliament election campaign. Despite the fact they no-one would get to vote them into a job they are appointed to.
However in March 2019 current EU Council President Donald Tusk decided to force Britain to stay in the EU for another six months. A move that forced Britain to participate in the elections for the EU Parliament.
In doing this Donald Tusk thought he was striking a victorious blow for supporters of the EU everywhere.
What Tusk actually did was trigger a massive backlash against his and the EU's utter contempt for democracy.
The result was a surge in support for anti-EU parties at the election for the EU Parliament. This caused the pro-EU left and pro-EU right to lose the majority they have always held in the EU Parliament.
With no majority neither the pro-EU left nor the pro-EU right were able force through their candidate for President of the EU Commission.
Instead the job ended up going to Germany's Ursula von der Leyen. Who had not only not participated in the faux election campaign but was only suggested as a candidate moments before being appointed.
The purpose of extending Britain's membership of the EU until October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) was that it would be unaffected by Ursula von der Leyen and the other EU Commissioners. Who would start work on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). As such Britain did not participate in their selection.
If Britain is going to still be an EU member of November 1st 2019 (1/11/19) then it will have to have its say on the EU Commissioners who will govern it. Meaning that the entire process will have to be reopened.
So the letter current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson needs to send to the EU to comply with the Benn Bill is as follows;
Dear Donald.
Enclosed is a copy of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act. This requires me to write to you requesting an extension to the Article 50 process until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).
Therefore I am requesting an extension to the Article 50 process until that date. However January 31st 2020 (31/1/20) is the only date that an extension is being sought for. No alternative dates are being sought or will be considered.
I'm sure that I do not need to remind you that the EU Council is legally forbidden from offering or imposing an extension to the Article 50 process which has not been sought.
Alongside my obligations under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act I also have a wider obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of the British people.
In order to meet those obligations the extension of the Article 50 process is sought only on the basis of the EU Council agreeing to fully meet the following conditions.
1. The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) will bind Britain to the decisions EU Commissioners who take up office on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). Therefore the process of appointing those EU Commissioners must be re-opened. In order to allow Britain to exercise its full rights to participate. Include the right to exercise its veto.
2. Throughout the Article 50 process Britain has waived its right to participate in the EU Council for matters which do not directly relate to that process. This was done on an understanding that Britain would leave the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19). Therefore would not be bound by new laws and rules passed by the EU Council.
The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) means that Britain is now to be bound by new laws and rules passed by the EU Council.
Therefore Britain's rights to participate in the EU Council, including its veto, must be fully and retroactively restored.
3. The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) leaves Britain as a full EU member as the EU begins negotiations over its new budget cycle.
Britain must enjoy its full rights, including its veto, to participate in this process. Furthermore Britain will have to be granted the further unique right not to contribute any money at all to the new EU budget cycle.
4. Extending the Article 50 process places significant financial burdens on Britain. Including and beyond its current contributions to the existing EU budget cycle. I myself have estimated these costs to be GB£1bn per week.
Therefore Britain must immediately end all of its financial contributions to the EU.
Furthermore the EU must compensate Britain for the continued cost of extending the Article 50 process. At a figure of GB£1bn per week. Backdated to March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
I am copying this letter to Presidents Juncker and Sassoli.
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson.
16:10 on 23/10/19 (UK date).
In the three years since then a group of roughly 300 British MP's have tried to thwart this Brexit. Desperate to keep Britain within the EU. At any cost.
Their latest wheeze has been The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill.
Authored by Labour's Hilary Benn this is sometimes known as the Benn Bill, the Benn Act or the Act of Surrender.
Regardless of what it is called it reveals the reason why those 300 MP's are desperate to keep Britain within the EU.
Since Britain joined what became the EU in British MP's or lawmakers have had very little role in making British laws.
Instead new laws are recommended by the EU Parliament. Introduced by the EU Commission. Then passed by the EU Council. Finally they are automatically turned into British laws through the mechanism of the European Communities Act of 1972.
So it hasn't mattered if British MP's are complete failures at representing the interests of the British people. The EU will always been on hand to bail them out and let them keep picking up the pay cheques.
Over the course of the last, nearly 50 years, this absence of responsibility has created a current crop of British MP's who are simply lacking the talent and skills needed to draft and pass even basic legislation.
The Benn Bill is a prime example of this complete lack of ability.
The intention of the Benn Bill was to maintain the status quo. To keep Britain's relationship with the EU the same. Regardless of what voters may think.
Instead though it dramatically alters Britain's relationship with the EU. Significantly removing power from the British Monarch, Parliament and voters and placing it in the hands of the EU.
For example it surrenders Britain's power to select the EU Commissioners who introduce new laws.
It surrenders Britain's power to veto the passing of those new laws by the EU Council.
It surrenders Britain's power to prevent those new EU laws becoming British laws by revoking the 1972 European Communities Act.
Something which is now tied to Britain leaving the EU. If Brexit is delayed then the European Communities Act remains in force for the duration of any extension.
The Benn Bill also, obviously, surrenders Britain's power to Leave the EU.
By surrendering Britain's power to Leave the EU the Benn Bill also surrenders Britain's ability to veto the next EU budget. Let alone Britain's right not to contribute to that EU budget.
Negotiations over the next EU budget cycle begin, really, on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). Once committed to that new budget cycle will last until 2028.
Despite surrendering all of these British powers to the EU the Benn Bill still manages to fail in its primary objective. To extend Britain's membership of the EU until, at least, January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).
Although it requires Britain to seek an extension it also requires Britain to attach conditions to that extension. In order to protect Britain's interests. It is impossible for the EU to meet those conditions.
Take for example the issue of EU Commissioners. Particularly the President of the EU Commission.
In May 2019 elections were held for the EU Parliament. One of the new EU Parliament's first tasks would be to confirm the EU Commissioners appointed by the existing EU Council.
The EU attempted to add the illusion of democracy to this process. By nominating to candidates for the President of the EU Commission. So the pro-EU left nominated Frans Timmermans while the pro-EU right nominated Jan Zahradil.
These two candidates then fought something of a faux election campaign, complete with televised debates, alongside the EU Parliament election campaign. Despite the fact they no-one would get to vote them into a job they are appointed to.
However in March 2019 current EU Council President Donald Tusk decided to force Britain to stay in the EU for another six months. A move that forced Britain to participate in the elections for the EU Parliament.
In doing this Donald Tusk thought he was striking a victorious blow for supporters of the EU everywhere.
What Tusk actually did was trigger a massive backlash against his and the EU's utter contempt for democracy.
The result was a surge in support for anti-EU parties at the election for the EU Parliament. This caused the pro-EU left and pro-EU right to lose the majority they have always held in the EU Parliament.
With no majority neither the pro-EU left nor the pro-EU right were able force through their candidate for President of the EU Commission.
Instead the job ended up going to Germany's Ursula von der Leyen. Who had not only not participated in the faux election campaign but was only suggested as a candidate moments before being appointed.
The purpose of extending Britain's membership of the EU until October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) was that it would be unaffected by Ursula von der Leyen and the other EU Commissioners. Who would start work on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). As such Britain did not participate in their selection.
If Britain is going to still be an EU member of November 1st 2019 (1/11/19) then it will have to have its say on the EU Commissioners who will govern it. Meaning that the entire process will have to be reopened.
So the letter current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson needs to send to the EU to comply with the Benn Bill is as follows;
Dear Donald.
Enclosed is a copy of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act. This requires me to write to you requesting an extension to the Article 50 process until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).
Therefore I am requesting an extension to the Article 50 process until that date. However January 31st 2020 (31/1/20) is the only date that an extension is being sought for. No alternative dates are being sought or will be considered.
I'm sure that I do not need to remind you that the EU Council is legally forbidden from offering or imposing an extension to the Article 50 process which has not been sought.
Alongside my obligations under the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Act I also have a wider obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of the British people.
In order to meet those obligations the extension of the Article 50 process is sought only on the basis of the EU Council agreeing to fully meet the following conditions.
1. The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) will bind Britain to the decisions EU Commissioners who take up office on November 1st 2019 (1/11/19). Therefore the process of appointing those EU Commissioners must be re-opened. In order to allow Britain to exercise its full rights to participate. Include the right to exercise its veto.
2. Throughout the Article 50 process Britain has waived its right to participate in the EU Council for matters which do not directly relate to that process. This was done on an understanding that Britain would leave the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19). Therefore would not be bound by new laws and rules passed by the EU Council.
The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) means that Britain is now to be bound by new laws and rules passed by the EU Council.
Therefore Britain's rights to participate in the EU Council, including its veto, must be fully and retroactively restored.
3. The extension beyond October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) leaves Britain as a full EU member as the EU begins negotiations over its new budget cycle.
Britain must enjoy its full rights, including its veto, to participate in this process. Furthermore Britain will have to be granted the further unique right not to contribute any money at all to the new EU budget cycle.
4. Extending the Article 50 process places significant financial burdens on Britain. Including and beyond its current contributions to the existing EU budget cycle. I myself have estimated these costs to be GB£1bn per week.
Therefore Britain must immediately end all of its financial contributions to the EU.
Furthermore the EU must compensate Britain for the continued cost of extending the Article 50 process. At a figure of GB£1bn per week. Backdated to March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
I am copying this letter to Presidents Juncker and Sassoli.
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson.
16:10 on 23/10/19 (UK date).
Monday, 14 October 2019
Trump Threw a Tantrum.
That is the sole and only reason the US now finds itself in full retreat from ISIL.
America has never had thousands of troops in Syria.
Tens of American troops were never being killed in Syria.
Hundreds of American troops were never being maimed in Syria.
America has never been spending billions, let alone trillions of dollars in Syria.
The was only one, small cost left for America to totally defeat ISIL.
Trump personally, through phone calls etc, had to exert diplomatic pressure on Erdogan to accept that ISIL had been defeated.
Trump decided that tiny bit of effort was beneath him and threw a tantrum.
As a result NATO now has no option other than to go to war with its former member Turkey.
That war can happen when Erdogan reaches Damascus.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Ramallah.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Jerusalem.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Cairo.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Benghazi.
But it is inevitable that it will have to happen.
It's better it happens now when then threat is still relatively small.
Because Trump's tantrum has been the very definition of a false economy.
18:40 on 14/10/19 (UK Date).
Edited at around 22:10 on 17/10/19 (UK date) to add;
Trump's October 6th (6/10/19) tantrum gave Turkey's Erdogan permission to invade & occupy roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) of Syria.
Long under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) this area has been operationally designated; "Shangri-La."
After 8 days of fighting Erdogan's forces now occupy roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milessq) of Shangri-La.
Today Trump is seriously trying convince us that he has forced Erdogan to accept a ceasefire.
I'm sure though Erdogan's forces will stop there.
After all that's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded & occupied the Garvaghy Road area of Syria.
That's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded &occupied the Afrin Canton area of Syria.
That's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded & occupied the Sudetenland area of Syria.
America has never had thousands of troops in Syria.
Tens of American troops were never being killed in Syria.
Hundreds of American troops were never being maimed in Syria.
America has never been spending billions, let alone trillions of dollars in Syria.
The was only one, small cost left for America to totally defeat ISIL.
Trump personally, through phone calls etc, had to exert diplomatic pressure on Erdogan to accept that ISIL had been defeated.
Trump decided that tiny bit of effort was beneath him and threw a tantrum.
As a result NATO now has no option other than to go to war with its former member Turkey.
That war can happen when Erdogan reaches Damascus.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Ramallah.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Jerusalem.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Cairo.
It can happen when Erdogan reaches Benghazi.
But it is inevitable that it will have to happen.
It's better it happens now when then threat is still relatively small.
Because Trump's tantrum has been the very definition of a false economy.
18:40 on 14/10/19 (UK Date).
Edited at around 22:10 on 17/10/19 (UK date) to add;
Trump's October 6th (6/10/19) tantrum gave Turkey's Erdogan permission to invade & occupy roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milesq) of Syria.
Long under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) this area has been operationally designated; "Shangri-La."
After 8 days of fighting Erdogan's forces now occupy roughly 15,160kmsq (9,100milessq) of Shangri-La.
Today Trump is seriously trying convince us that he has forced Erdogan to accept a ceasefire.
I'm sure though Erdogan's forces will stop there.
After all that's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded & occupied the Garvaghy Road area of Syria.
That's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded &occupied the Afrin Canton area of Syria.
That's what we said when Erdogan's forces invaded & occupied the Sudetenland area of Syria.
Thursday, 26 September 2019
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).
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).
Tuesday, 17 September 2019
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).
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).
Monday, 9 September 2019
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)