An individual has a right to self defence, but in the modern political climate his enemies will try to convince him that he doesn’t by telling him that if he exercises his right, then he is being violent, or an extremist. They do this in reaction even to any expression he might make in reference to exercising his right, or his intention to exercise it. But essentially, what the freeman must remember is that he remains free only if he doesn’t allow his enemies to cow him. A freeman has a right to free speech, and definitely a right to warn his enemies what will happen in the exercise of his self-defence. Collectively, freemen can express themselves this way. This is why the High Court Judges who yesterday assaulted our constitution are rightly called Enemies of the People in some parts of the Fourth Estate. These journalists (who must be experiencing a deep instinct for liberty which is reflexively overpowering the crushing effect of years of whoring for the Establishment), are doing what they are meant to do, and speaking aggressively for a collective of freemen.
Of course, the Enemy of Freeman has worm-tongued operatives placed in influential and strategic positions other than those ensconced in the British legal system. Social media is full of them – useless idiots most – and large swathes of corporate media are ideological fellow travellers, or paid mercenaries – or Captains of Intelligence. Predictably, they are telling Freeman that he is not allowed to be upset by what happened in the High Court yesterday. But Freeman is allowed to be proportionally upset, and he is allowed to take proportional remedial action – and those who want to remain free are allowed to talk about taking that action. We have a right to self-defence.
Let’s be clear. What happened in the High Court yesterday was an attack against the well being of Freeman. We have a constitution that is meant to protect our individual freedom collectively. What the High Court Judges did yesterday was undermine that protection. Our Enemy’s operatives tell us that we were treated to the shoring up of Parliamentary sovereignty. What they omit is that it was done so at the expense of the constitution as a whole.
The following is an extract from the summary of the ruling made by the High Court. It comes from a section establishing the background to the ruling:
The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation.
To summarise this extract: the Crown’s prerogative powers normally apply to international affairs and treaties, and shouldn’t intrude on domestic legislation.
The summary continues:
In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect.
This says that EU law engendered by the 1972 Act (referring to the European Communities Act) is domestic law and that this domestic law will be affected by notice under Article 50. The summary goes on to say that because the use of the Crown’s prerogative to give notice under Article 50 will have this altering consequence, it therefore contravenes the boundaries of its expected jurisdiction. As such, the Crown’s prerogative cannot be used to trigger Article 50. In other words, the fact that the EU treaties cause domestic law means that the Government cannot repeal them with Crown’s prerogative powers.
Just think, the fact of legislation from a foreign power itself denies the Crown’s prerogative to prevent the issuing of that legislation.
The summary goes on:
The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the… EU Treaties, and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not.
Yes, common sense dictates that the Crown would retain a historical constitutional prerogative in spite of any EU legislation. Our law should be superior to EU legislation. However the judgement of the High Court insists that there is nothing in the EC Act 1972 that maintains the jurisdiction of prerogative power over the EU Treaties†. We should understand this to mean that legislation enabling foreign rule that also disabled a constitutional defence against it was intended, by cunning omission of crucial clauses, from the very start. Moreover, over intervening years, the Establishment has been squirreling more power for foreign rule through precedent-setting cases* and writings that seem to have helped form this judgement, so that the EC Act 1972, while on the statute book… “give(s) directly effective EU law superiority even over domestic primary legislation” and that it is “constitutional statue… having such importance in our legal system that it is not subject to the usual wide principle of implied repeal by subsequent legislation.”
Now it is the author’s suspicion that actually the prerogative of the Crown can be used more extensively than reported, and the fact that it hasn’t in the past has formed the convention that it isn’t used (the bottom line is that the Crown’s powers are restricted in relation to the British “Republic”. If the Parliament, which is merely an expression of the Republic, becomes illegitimate, then arguably the Crown should be able to intefere in Parliament). However, setting all that aside, what we clearly have here is a judicial ruling that actually sets EU legislation supreme over the normal working of our constitution. This ruling actually denies Crown’s prerogative in favour of EU legislation.
Once again, there is a lot being said by aforementioned useful idiots and operatives about how this judgement upholds parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, but to the detriment of our constitution. Parliament is now protected to rubber stamp EU legislation – by that very legislation; and this is a state of affairs that will last while Parliament is full of EU Yes Men. So, the judgement has handed full power to a vassal of Brussels.
I judge that to be an attack on our constitution, and an act of treason. As such, it should be countered by patriots (individuals with a concern in the protection of rights, and the community in which individuals live together where this is encoded for common good – a country) exercising their right to self-defence.
The way ahead is to repeal the 1972 EC Act. As the High Court judgement admits, this can be repealed by Parliament. The “domestic” EU law can also be repealed by Parliament. But a Parliament willing to do this must be in place. And so, patriots must force a General Election as soon as possible, and vote for candidates that promise to repeal the 1972 EC Act. UKIP should run with this promise central to their manifesto, and make it clear that there is no alternative and explain why. There is a case to make that UKIP must form a strategy so as to help get elected Labour and Tory MPs who would pledge to repealing the 1972 EC Act, but the author does not recommend it. The LibLabCon is simply not to be trusted. For instance, notice how Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg describes how High Court and Supreme Court activism could be circumvented by legislation in the current Parliament:
This could be done through a small Bill that merely gives a (Prime?) Minister the right to give notice under Article 50 and need not run to more than a couple of clauses. Such a Bill could be passed within hours – but it is possible it could be obstructed.
While researching this article, it occurred that Article 50 is a complete Red Herring that was meant as a trap so that the question of Brexit could be placed in the hands of the EU vassal at Westminster and in a way that Tory Government could distance itself from the subsequent public negativity. Remember, Parliament is captured by a foreign power and British collaborators so that it is immune to a constitutional tool that could break this control. It is not guaranteed, and actually unlikely, that Parliament will legislate to open the way to Brexit before a General Election. As for that contest, a meme is emerging whereby the crisis is seen as being beneficial for the Tories, and it was expressed again by Rees-Mogg:
The Conservative Party has nothing to fear from a general election. I think we would win it quite comfortably and the electorate would very likely carry out a purge of pro-Europeans.
If we look at some facts on the ground. Parliament is overwhelmingly pro-EU. This means that most Tories must be pro-EU, and indeed they are. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave. How could a purge of “pro-Europeans” (notice the choice of language) happen without mass de-selection first, which isn’t going to happen. The leadership of the Tory Party is pro-EU (see the ConservativeHome article). What Rees-Mogg reveals is probably the hoped-for outcome of a scheme to exploit the crisis and have the Tories sit in that insulated-from-constitution Parliament pretending to be anti-EU and leading the electorate by the nose until it’s too late.
Finally, if Parliament fails, then all is not lost. In his response to the ruling, UKIP MEP and constitutionalist Gerard Batten questions the supremacy of Parliament, and he is right to do so. The fundamental principle is government by consent. If Parliament is not consented to by those who are governed, it is not government. Parliament does not have a divine right to rule, and in the name of self-defence, patriots have the right to replace any form of government with another that does honour the principle of rule by consent.
† In fact this reflects plaintiff’s argument that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of prerogative powers by enacting the 1972 Act. Lawyers for Britain demonstrate why this is not the case.
*Gerard Batten points out that precedent supports the use of the prerogative; it reminds that law is open to interpretation, and rulings depend on who is doing the interpretation (in this case, one openly pro-EU judge):