• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« on: September 24, 2019, 06:29:04 PM »
If it is acceptable for the Supreme Court to consider the motives of the Prime Minister then what of the consideration of the motives of those bringing the case to Court?  We were not allowed an audience.

As we were not allowed an audience to give our thoughts or consideration, The List-Brexit has sent an email to the Supreme Court Judges.  We may not have the financial funding that Gina Miller accepts, but that should allow our consideration from not being heard.  After all, we gave the Prime Minister a mandate, twice. Gina Miller has no  mandate.  Below you can read our email sent to all Supreme Court Judges. pdf. format Email Letter
 21st September, 2019
Email : For the attention of :
The Rt. Hon. Lady Hale, The Rt. Hon. Lord Reed, The Rt.Hon. Lord Kerr, The Rt. Hon. Lord Wilson, The Rt. Hon. Lord Carnwath, The Rt.  Hon. Lord Hodge, The Rt. Hon. Lady Black, The Rt. Hon. Lord Lloyd-Jones, The Rt. Hon. Lady Arden, The Rt. Hon. Lord Kitchin, The Rt. Hon. Lord Sales
Dear Lords and Ladies,
I am one of the 17.4 million who voted Leave and represent a group forming part of that majority called The List – Brexit. 
In contrast to the speed with which this Appeal has been received and heard, we have not had the time or the finance to formally request audience in this matter of great constitutional importance which is affecting the rights and liberties of the majority of ordinary people living in the UK.  I therefore ask that you take into consideration the thoughts and wishes of the majority of the Electorate who have given the Prime Minister a Mandate, twice - to Leave the EU entirely and which this case, again, is trying to prevent.
If it is acceptable for the Supreme Court to consider the motives of the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament and his advice to the Queen, then surely in the interest of justice one must also consider the motives of those bringing this case to court?
May I point out that Ms. Gina Miller has now brought two cases to your Supreme Court, yet you never once took our human rights or thoughts into consideration?  This is our democratic country too!
You are considering whether the Prime Minister has lawfully advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament and whether this is justiciable in the Courts. There is no law, statutory or otherwise which prevents the Prime Minister from so advising the Queen. If he were to be excessive in his actions, no doubt the Palace would so advise her Majesty and in any event Parliament and ultimately the Electorate would hold him to account. Any attempt by the Court to double guess his intent would be seen as a political act, there being no law which prevents it. 
The Sovereignty of the Electorate is superior to Parliament whose authority is limited to enacting laws and to some extent criticising the Executive and holding it to account.
Parliament has no legal authority to interfere with the conduct of the Executive in carrying out their duties. If they can, what is the point of the Executive?
Parliament is only Sovereign in the sense that it is the only institution in the Constitution with the power to enact laws. The real Sovereignty resides with the Electorate. They select by voting who should sit in Parliament and those chosen agree to ‘represent their constituents’ within that environment. (Some MPs have failed to do this.) The Courts interpret the laws and the Executive governs the day to day running of the country.  This is called the Separation of Powers.
Democracy and our uncodified Constitution is in a very dangerous position brought on by this Cabal, and allowing this case to be heard, the Courts are stepping over the line instead of staying within the province of their constitutional structure (Separation of Powers).
This cabal is only trying to thwart democracy and the wishes of the majority of the Electorate.  What could possibly be said now that wasn't said in three and half years?
It is a political issue not one of law and one very important point that has been left out, whether intentionally or not, is that the Electorate hold Supreme Power, not Parliament, nor the “Supreme” Court. Under the Bill of Rights (Art.9), the courts do not have the right to question proceedings in Parliament.
We have given the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party a mandate twice and Parliament has endorsed the implementation of Article 50 despite the efforts of Gina Miller.  The Appellants hold no mandate from the majority of the Electorate. The majority of the Electorate voted Leave in the 2016 EU Referendum and then again the majority voted for the Conservative Party due to their manifesto stating that they would respect the wishes of the majority and leave the EU.
In (Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374),  Lord Roskill gave examples of prerogative powers not disposed to judicial review such as ‘the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the dissolution of parliament (by prorogation or otherwise} and the appointment of ministers as well as others’. On this basis the courts decided that the government were within their rights.
To say that the Prime Minister acted in any way illegally would be, not only to encroach and undermine the principles under the Separation of Powers, and to remove the correct functioning of the Executive, but to try to remove the ultimate sovereignty under a democracy which is held by the Electorate.
This should NEVER have come to Court - it is a political problem not one for the law courts.
Parliament did sit in the period before prorogation took effect and in this period demonstrated its power in relation to the executive by passing a major Statute quickly.  It had many remedies at its disposal -   motion of no confidence, even shortened holiday, no political party conferences, but they did not pursue these options.  They were offered a General Election, twice, but they refused.  There is clearly no injury or damage requiring remedy or relief.
The Prime Minister and Government must be allowed to function correctly as the Executive.  They have received a firm mandate from the majority of the Electorate, twice and cannot be prevented from carrying out their function and duty and the wishes of the majority of the Electorate.  As part of the Separation of Powers, it is for the Judiciary to interpret laws, not make them.  If the Supreme Court uphold the Appellant's argument then a Prime Minister who has sought its prerogative power of the Crown in Parliament to control its own proceedings will have rendered this power subject to an unprecedented level of judicial control; thereby removing a fundamental pillar of that very sovereignty.   The Judiciary cannot take the place of the Crown.
To have listened to the ex-Prime Minister, John Major has outraged us.  He too prorogued Parliament for more base reasons – “cash for questions/Maastricht Treaty” – than the matter under consideration.  How can you listen to a man who signed the Maastricht Treaty, thereby giving more Sovereignty & Powers to a foreign entity, without the Consent of the Electorate, which is forbidden under our Constitution?
If you rule in their favour, this Cabal which has poisoned our political and democratic system, then we will believe you too are part of the problem.
Whilst writing, I would point out that we are currently still under EU law, and as such would refer you to the Venice Commission and the ‘Code of Good Practice in Referendums’ to which the U.K. is a signatory, and adopted in 2006, specifically states “Parliament must not abuse their position”.  Chapter 5 point 4.1 ‘the authorities must respect the people’s decision”.
Our elected Government must now be left to carry out the wishes of the majority of the Electorate.  We would ask that you consider very carefully your decision and to whom this decision would really affect.
Yours sincerely,

Helen Davies The List - Brexit



Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk