On good knowledge the UK administration neither understands the subject of sovereignty, or is fit to impose it on a G7 nation's populous. Ironic because everyday our House representatives go through all of the constitutional practices of seventeenth century parliamentary ritual only to derive none of it goes in, leaving our governance embarrassingly inadequate.
Inadvertently, this has led us to a severely dangerous epoch. The situation resembles off-duty soldier gay-fully walking towards the front line armed with a cheese grater and bottle opener believing it'll be a picnic. Not exercising a nation's sovereignty, over a non-sovereignty (EU) is total incompetence; yet not knowing of its existence is truly minacious for all citizens. To make a comparison, to the French political landscape... sovereignty was actively at the forefront of Le Pen's 'Front National' campaign, exactly the same 'sovereignty rhetoric' was exposed by the right-wing Tories during 'GE2017,' yet they govern via selling the nation myths about sovereignty. The French have smelt the coffee, the UK obviously have a cold or are too senseless to have noticed the waft of fascism stripping back all that we hold dear.
A while ago, I watched in horror when the May administration went to the Supreme Court to find out whether parliament was sovereign. "What an absolute mess?" I thought, I can only surmise that the current administration didn't know sovereignty was decided thanks to the English Civil War. Yeah, a good 'ol fashioned Civil War commenced and gifted government powers... remarkable isn't it, these simians obviously haven't read Jean-Louis de Lolme. Ah, yes, parliamentary sovereignty is a tour de force; imagine what damage they could have done with all that sovereign power - meh, since 1974 the corridors of power have passed it by as if it was an urban myth; lost in Old English translation, documented, filed and sent to the government vault never to see the light of day again. Perhaps they saw this idea of sovereignty as Latin Plainchant, something you hum to without deliberating on its significance. Of course the Supreme Court had quizzical stares and wisely distanced themselves from the innate Justice Secretary: Liz Truss, she's now President of International Trade. To state that relations with the highest court and now international trade is 'mediocre' is an understatement, and it stems from treating the EU Referendum result (Brexit) as law not just advisory which it is.
The severity of Gina Miller's plight for simply highlighting parliamentary sovereignty has been grossly played down by the mainstream media... she's had death threats from fascists for years, everyone under-reported. What is prevalent is the 'Brexit' commination derives a demographic who applaud the banana policies from the quondam Brexit Party space cadets. Saying it as it is... 'taking back control' etc, without heed or thought of how to resolve any aspect of what Halloween looks like. Gina Miller like the rest of us, y'know, the so-called experts who flirt with law, economic objectives and customary regulation understands how vital it is for the truth of national and parliamentary sovereignty to come out in the 'Brexit' discourse with our 'EU partners.'
What's apparent is the written doctrine within our democracy that UK's capital and suchlike shall be protected from ill-advised trade reforms under our very own democratic constitution - see part (13) of the 'Magna Carta' (1215): 'The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their *liberties* and *free customs*.' By water, denotes Europe... i.e. our main trading block. Worth noting if UK's EU's protectionism mantra continues and incorrectly labeled under national sovereignty / will, the siphoning off large chunks of our own land is guaranteed for the union is based on common interests not Common Laws - ultimately causing national self-harming on a seismic scale. To verify only a sovereign parliament can break up a nation into independent nations, no non-sovereign parliament (the EU Parliament) has the power via Treaties to impose laws onto a sovereign parliament; regardless of governance or majority. Parliamentarians should read up on the English Constitution (1771) before it's too late.
Rules have to be comprehended and abide by, however it's increasingly alarming that suppositious views of government is automatically unchallenged by our constitutional convention itself. Why not adhere to, 'The Office of Constitutional Responsibility?' As stated, I've commandeered our sovereign parliament was brought about due to the English Civil War (1642 - 51) whereby the English parliament forces were triumphant - and so a parliamentary sovereignty was formed; herewith the 'Bill of Rights' (1689) succinctly exposes the injustices which leads to gaining policy control via means of fabulist content. For a fine example: 'Brexit' was brought about by those who *claimed to have a theme / right of authority* that effectively pretended / suspended British law - under this observation, the result in 2016 was sufficiently illegal.
If we didn't have an English Civil War that bespoke a sovereign parliament, the delusional concept of being run by '27 EU States' may've been a smidgen plausible; due to the 'EU' parliament's myopic language and pertinacity against reform (s). Part of the 'Bill of Rights' also allows for validating a maneourvre to remove the governance /national guardianship if the national sovereignty is diminished by direct destruction, this is inclusive of revenue or land. Indeed, worth mentioning that 'Civil Servants' (parliamentarians who are our duty-bound servants not above the law) are not protected by parliament privileges if their own party agendas or their own agendas knowingly threatens the UK's prosperity / sovereignty. Why Gina Miller and her team is on the right side of the law, they'll hold the UK administration to account under our own constitution practices.
For the English Civil War deniers who have difficulty in comprehending parliamentary sovereignty, there was an address to King Charles I that has been ignored it's known as 'Petition of Right' (1628); y-es, before the Civil War. The law petition is written to the Head of State: it's firstly, a Civil Servant oath to honor 'your Majesty' and the prosperity of the United Kingdom... and secondly, is graciously pleased to honor, comfort and safety to 'your Majesty's' subjects (people). For those who feel unsettled about the 'Petition of Right' may I refer them to the 'Charter of Liberties' written in (1100) a hundred years prior to the Great Charter known as the 'Magna Carta.' The 'CoL' exposes the common man's liberties to never be in debt due to act of parliament. Interestingly enough, the Charter goes further still... no seigniorages can be taken from cities and counties either... henceforth, Councils in the UK can under national sovereignty, enforce parliament to vote on regional austerity measures; plus, highlight 'Brexit plans' for a city dependent on EU subsidies.
By failing to do so they're not abiding to the 'Charter of Liberty' law (s). This documentation rests at the core of every democracy; so, again, if you feel overwrought about comprehending the 'CoL' which sits at the foundation to parliamentary sovereignty, move to a fascistic state, whereby rights and liberties are not bound by law and order but based on daily whims... I have a term for them: opinion tides - by nature the fascists attempt to drown the voices of opposition, usually they find the rigorous mental workout far too rational for their liking. Overall, ill at eased with having a sovereign governance... what with having nine hundred years of law and order; perhaps it doesn't count for these types till the year 2100!
Since the cozy coalition of the ConDems there's been a cacophony of EU legislation passed, available for public scrutiny. Increasingly so, the governance has derangely claimed they're obsolete when it comes to the policies of un-elected EU bureaucrats making our laws. The certifiable rhetoric has incessantly stated that the British parliament is not sovereign any longer; therefore, have we gone through a paradigm whereby *all constitutional laws* have effectively been white washed? Apparently, due to the Queen's Speech announcing the Repeal Bill the UK has just gained 'full sovereignty' (whatever that means) from June 21st 2017, in turn this will give the UK immense power across the democratic spectrum -- Ye-h, everyone should be swinging from the one billion pound money tree while singing Thomas Arne's 'Rule Britannia!' Duped into believing this parliamentary sovereignty fantasy exists, for the parliamentary sovereignty reality is banal to 51% of our populous; ah, Britain is a sucker for a hard-luck anecdote; Dominic Cummings knew this too well.
Since the cozy coalition of the ConDems there's been a cacophony of EU legislation passed, available for public scrutiny. Increasingly so, the governance has derangely claimed they're obsolete when it comes to the policies of un-elected EU bureaucrats making our laws. The certifiable rhetoric has incessantly stated that the British parliament is not sovereign any longer; therefore, have we gone through a paradigm whereby *all constitutional laws* have effectively been white washed? Apparently, due to the Queen's Speech announcing the Repeal Bill the UK has just gained 'full sovereignty' (whatever that means) from June 21st 2017, in turn this will give the UK immense power across the democratic spectrum -- Ye-h, everyone should be swinging from the one billion pound money tree while singing Thomas Arne's 'Rule Britannia!' Duped into believing this parliamentary sovereignty fantasy exists, for the parliamentary sovereignty reality is banal to 51% of our populous; ah, Britain is a sucker for a hard-luck anecdote; Dominic Cummings knew this too well.
As 'Brexit' unfolds, the grand scale of the sovereignty falsifications will come home to roost. I suspect political and business authors namely Alistair Jones who wrote candidly about the fundamental hostility that the EU poses for Britain in his imaginatively titled book: 'Britain and the European Union' (2007); the author seemingly dramaticised the ideological contretemps about parliament sovereignty that has graced the halls of Brussells since Wilson's administration. Yep, nothing worse than un-elected bureaucrats following through with their national interests... Jones bursts out. Err, albeit, a sovereign parliament can reject them.Time to form a cross party alliance including those with EU negotiating expertise, namely the Italian technocrats, better still revoke Art50 under the instruction of Lord Kerr.
Comments
Post a Comment