Article 50 Case: Gina Miller/Mishcon (Nov 2016)

Lawyers:
 

"Since the result of the Brexit referendum was announced on 24 June 2016, it has become clear that there are significant forces in this country who do not accept the democratic result.  There have been both legal and political moves in certain quarters to seek to delay, frustrate, re-run or somehow ultimately reverse the decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom.  One of those moves has been a legal action begun by the law firm Mishcon de Reya on behalf of undisclosed clients, whose stated aim is 'to ensure the UK Government will not trigger the procedure for withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament'." [source].

The Prerogative Power of the Crown Regarding Treaties

Lawyers:
 

"The legal power to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is in law a prerogative power vested in the Crown, which may be exercised by government ministers without the need for authorisation or consent from Parliament" [source].
 

"The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which spells out who has the power to take a decision to withdraw from the EU and communicate that decision to the European Council.  Therefore, one starts by looking at the general law on who has the power to conclude and withdraw from international treaties.  And the general rule is quite clear. Under the UK's constitution, it is the Crown (the Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative in practice on the advice of government minsters) which has the power to enter into and withdraw from international treaties" [source].

"The power in law to give a notification under Article 50 is a prerogative power of the Crown which may be exercised by the government without the need for Parliamentary consent or approval" [source].
 

"The Lisbon Treaty, which inserted Article 50 into the Treaty of European Union, was given effect in UK law by the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act therefore made the Article 50 power available for use by the Crown but did not specify that its existence would need the approval of Parliament. That Act however explicitly provides for Parliamentary control over certain prerogative acts under the EU treaties, including Article 49 on Treaty revision. But notably, the statutory scheme of Parliamentary control of prerogative power does not extend to notification under Article 50" [source].
 

"There has been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve 'less Europe' in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose" [source].
 

"Mishcon's proposed challenge is devoid of all legal merit. As a matter of law, giving of notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is a matter of Crown prerogative. No Act or other parliamentary approval is required before this is done. In the European Union Act 2011, Parliament has chosen to require parliamentary approval before ministers are allowed to take certain actions under the European treaties, but notably has not extended any such restrictions to Article 50. Any argument that there is an implied restriction is therefore quite hopeless" [Martin Howe QC, Chairman, Lawyers for Britain, 04 July 2016, source].
  

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"Treat issues have long been left to Ministerial prerogative by parliament for the simple reason that you cannot handle a negotiation successfully with 650 different voices all setting out a position. ... When Ministers are negotiating Treaties, parliament debates and votes as it sees fit, but leaves all the work and the detail to Ministers. Parliament does not usually want to undermine the national interest by demanding information helpful to those we are negotiating with" [source].
 

"Throughout our time in the EEC/EU Ministers have regularly used prerogative powers to bind us into EU decisions, regulations and judgements which Parliament has been unable to vote on or prevent. Many of these have adversely affected our right to be a sovereign and free people. It was curious that the High Court of England thought that was acceptable yet using the same prerogative powers to bring the right to self-government back was not" [source].
 

"The other main argument the judges used was the bizarre idea that prerogative powers of Ministers can never be used to change UK law. What do they think has been happening for the 44 years of our membership of the EU? Time after time Ministers have consented to an EU law under prerogative powers which directly changes UK law. Why did they approve and encourage this process, and then turn round when we wish to use the same method to restore UK Parliamentary control and say it cannot be done? Given that this is to implement a decision by the people, surely that puts [it] in much better order than all those times neither people nor Parliament were asked to decide on changes of their laws thanks to Brussels" [source].
 

"Treaties are merely agreements between governments ... All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first. Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application. This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the HofL in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgment clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty" [source].
 

"It is for the Government of the UK ... to decide whether to trigger an article 50 process after such a referendum result. ... The UK is the signatory to the European treaties, and therefore it is the UK Government who take the decision on whether to invoke article 50" [David Lidington, Minister of State for Europe, HofC Hansard Debates for 25 February 2016, Section: European Affairs, Column: 564, source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"[The judges] might, however, stand on firmer ground were there evidence in the last 43 years of the law stopping the prerogative being used to transfer powers to Europe; whereas it seems routine for the law to stop the prerogative bringing powers back, despite the views of 17.4 million voters" [Simon Heffer, The Sunday Telegraph, 06 November 2016].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"It appears that the Government lawyers have missed vital precedents in arguing the case. Extraordinary!  In a nutshell, the Government can make or repudiate treaties at will. The consequences for individuals then have to be legislated but that is a separate matter which does not hold up the making or repudiation of treaties in themselves" [comment at source].
 

"If this legal argument stands then presumably governments have previously used this prerogative unlawfully - won't all those decisions need reversing?" [comment at source].

An Advisory-Only Referendum?

Lawyers:
 

"Constitutionally the referendum result was decisive and binding and not just advisory.  The referendum result not merely authorises but positively mandates the government to exercise its legal power to give notice under Article 50" [source].
 

"The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015 promised a referendum on membership of the EU in the following terms: 'We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.'  It should be noted that the election promise was to 'let the people decide'.  It was not a promise to hold an advisory referendum, with the final decision being left to Parliament. ... the British people were given a politically and constitutionally binding promise in the election manifesto of the successful party that they would be given the final and deciding say in a referendum in which the majority would prevail.  As a matter of constitutional practice, the inclusion of a policy in the election manifesto of a political party which achieves a majority at a general election gives rise to a constitutional mandate to implement that policy" [source].
 

"In the course of the referendum campaign the government spent £9.5 million of taxpayers' money on printing a leaflet and distributing it to all households in the UK. ... On the page headed 'A once in generation decision' it stated that: 'The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.'  It did not say 'it is your chance to advise on whether we should remain, the actual decision being taken by Parliament'.  But it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic: 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'  It is therefore clear that the referendum was not merely advisory, but was constitutionally decisive and binding.  The clear, repeated and unequivocal promise made to the British people was that their vote in the referendum would finally decide the course which our country takes.  Treating the result as merely advisory would be a flagrant breach of the repeated and unequivocal promises made to the British people.  There should be no second guessing or reversal of the result by Parliament or by anybody else.  The government is therefore constitutionally mandated to exercise its legal power under the Royal prerogative to trigger the Article 50 process" [source].
 

"As a matter of constitutional and political authority, the decision of the British people in a national referendum authorised by Act of Parliament not merely permits but mandates the giving of notice, without the need for any vote by Parliament" [Martin Howe QC, Chairman, Lawyers for Britain, 04 July 2016, source].
 

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"On Thursday, 23rd June there will be a referendum.  It's your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the EU. ... This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom.  It is important that you vote. ... This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide" [HM Government booklet, sent to every household in the UK, June 2016].
 

"Let me be clear, the Government will respect the outcome of the referendum, whatever the result. There will be no second referendum. The propositions on the ballot paper are clear, and I want to be equally clear today. Leave means leave, and a vote to leave will trigger a notice under article 50. To do otherwise in the event of a vote to leave would represent a complete disregard of the will of the people. No individual, no matter how charismatic or prominent, has the right or the power to redefine unilaterally the meaning of the question on the ballot paper. ... A vote to leave would trigger a fixed two-year time period under the treaty for the UK to negotiate the terms of our exit from, and our future relationship with, the EU. ... the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. ... It is the Government's position that if the electorate give a clear decision in this referendum to leave, the Government will proceed to serve an article 50 notice; there will be no need for a further process in this House" [Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HofC Hansard Debates for 25 February 2016, Section: European Affairs, Columns: 497, 498, 517, source and source].
 

"Today I am commencing the process set out under our European Union Referendum Act to propose that the British people decide our future in Europe through an in/out referendum on Thursday 23 June. ... This is a vital decision for the future of our country, and I believe we should also be clear that it is a final decision. ... For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic. ... Then there is the legality.  I want to spell out this point carefully, because it is important.  If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away" [David Cameron, Prime Minister, HofC Hansard Debates for 22 February 2016, Section: European Council, Column: 24, source].
 

"The people of Britain now face an historic choice on 23 June on whether to remain part of the European Union or to leave.  We welcome the fact that it is now in the hands of the people of this country to decide that issue" [Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Opposition, HofC Hansard Debates for 22 February 2016, Section: European Council, Column: 26, source].
 

"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation.  It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. ... The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument.  But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber.  The decision must be for the common sense of the British people.  This is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver.  For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say.  For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads.  For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard.  This Bill puts that right.  It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the house" [Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HofC Hansard Debates for 09 June 2015, Section: European Union Referendum Bill Second Reading, Columns 1047 and 1056, source].
 

"It would also have been wise of the judges had read the leaflet ... with Parliament's approval stating clearly [that] the people were making the decision to leave or remain. They could also have read the many Hansard references stating [that] the people will make the decision in the referendum. This was not an advisory referendum in any normal sense of that word. They could also have consulted the official literature of the two referendum campaigns and seen that one of the few things they agreed on was [that] the people were to make the decision. The reason Remain rhetoric was so hyped about the dangers of leaving was their recognition that the people might make the wrong choice in their view. The vote of the people should be more powerful than the views of three judges" [source].
 

Pro-Brexit Groups:
 

"The Government committed that the Referendum vote would be treated as an instruction and that Article 50 would be invoked with no further process in Parliament. The people voted in the Referendum to tell the Government to leave the European Union" [source].
 

"On February 25th [2016] both the pro-Remain Foreign Secretary and the pro-Remain Europe Minister clearly told MPs that the decision on whether to trigger Article 50 would be a decision for the government, not for Parliament. MPs had opportunities not only to object, but to force through a motion asserting their counter-claim and prevent the government promising in its official booklet sent to every household in the country that: 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'  As pro-Remain MPs were not sufficiently bothered to do that before the vote we can't see how they or anyone else could maintain they have any right to change the rules now that the vote has the 'wrong' way for them" [source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"The government promised to implement the will of the people. And the very definition of referendum is that it is a vote by the general public which has been referred to them for a 'direct decision'. ... This would in the minds of most sane people be regarded as direct democratic action which therefore supersedes Parliament. For what is Parliament if not the representatives of the people? And if the people have been consulted directly, then why should Parliament opine? Why should Parliamentarians, be they Commoners or Lords, be handed, ex post facto, a greater say in a direct referendum that the average voter? This is why today's ruling by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales is simply judicial activism of the worst kind" [source].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"JR writes: 'The vote of the people was only mentioned at the end, and dismissed for no good reason as advisory.'  By way of comparison, let us read how the Queen's Senior Correspondence Officer expresses Her Majesty's position, as follows (emphasis added): '[A]s a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers'. In other words, Her Majesty bows to the democratic will as expressed by her Ministers. How much more are the representatives of the people obliged to bow to the democratic will as expressed by the people themselves" [comment at source].
 

"To the question of who calls the tune, the people's representatives or the people themselves, there can be only one answer" [comment at source].
 

"If Parliament is supposed to represent the people, then it has to agree to the implementation of the outcome of the referendum. If that has to involve Parliament voting on Article 50, then in my view it has no choice but to vote in favour of giving the government the right to invoke it. Every MP should base their vote on the outcome of the referendum in their constituency. After all, they're in the unusual situation of knowing exactly what their constituencies want, and if they vote against that wish, then they effectively abandon their claim to represent them" [comment at source].

Parliamentary Process

"I hope the Judges understand three basic points. The first is the referendum was the decision. Government made that clear in parliament and in a leaflet to all voting households. The second is Parliament can debate Brexit any time it likes, and has done so extensively already. The third is Parliament needs to make up its own mind on what it wants to vote on, and is free to do so. There can be plenty of votes on the Repeal Bill" [source].
 

"The main method of taking the UK out of the EU is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. This will be a thorough Parliamentary process, ensuring MPs are fully engaged" [source].

General Election

The British People:
 

"One thing seems clear to me: contrary to what was said in some quarters about the possibility that yet another general election may be required, the 2015 general election was conducted on the basis that, if the Conservatives formed a government, a referendum would be held for the British people to decide (by the way, we acceded as Britain and not England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) as to whether we would Remain or [Leave] and that the resultant will of the people would be respected. The general election was held and the result meant that one outcome was the holding of the referendum. The referendum was duly held and a decisive majority voted to leave. To base a legal challenge on the wording of an EU article which was not even part of this process seems the ultimate in frivolity to me. It is totally irrelevant. Our referendum decision was predicated upon our general election decision and thus is final., Anything else is pure mischief making. If another general election were to be held on the basis of confirming the referendum, then the whole procedure could just repeat and an infinite regress would set in" [comment at source].

Domestic Law

Lawyers:
 

"The fundamental flaw in the Divisional Court's reasoning ... is that it misunderstands the effect of giving notice under Article 50 and misinterprets the ECA72. It assumes that giving notice would affect domestic law when clearly it wouldn't. Article 50 operates in the international plane only. If the ECA72 were structured in such a way that domestic effect would only be given to those EU treaties to which the UK was a party then yes, withdrawal would affect the rights of British Citizens and EU aliens in the UK including Ms Dos Santos, who is a subject of His Catholic Majesty the King of Spain.  However the EU treaties are listed in the act. In order for those treaties to cease to be law the Act would need to be repealed. The government aren't even trying to alter domestic law by using the Royal Prerogative. It would be strange to leave the EU and still have the treaties as part of UK law, but Parliament can and does do strange things. The ECA72 was pretty strange to begin with" [source].
 

"At the centre of the Brexit litigation is a fallacious argument that fundamental constitutional principle forbids the executive from terminating treaty-based rights. The claimants [Miller/Mishcon] maintain that rights under the EU Treaties, treaties and rights which are incorporated into British law by the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA), are statutory rights enacted by Parliament. The claimants argue that it follows that the executive is unable to terminate the UK's adherence to those Treaties without the authority of a new Act of Parliament. But rights in EU law, enjoyed by persons in the UK because of the ECA, are not statutory rights enacted by Parliament. They are treaty-based rights, 'statutory' in a weaker, narrower sense than the claimants need. The ECA incorporates EU law - gives it statutory force - just as it stands 'from time to time' and this body of law and associated rights is constantly open to change in the international realm, by way of decisions by the EU or EU-related bodies, in which the Crown often participates" [source].
 

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"Part of the reasoning of the Court is that triggering Article 50 'will inevitably effect the changing of domestic law.'  However, this is precisely the argument for why they cannot make this ruling. Treaties are merely agreements between governments. The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament. All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first. Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application. This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the HofL in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgment clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty. Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction" [source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"The [High Court] judges argued that when Parliament voted in 1972 to join what was then the EC, it gave the British people certain 'rights' and that such 'rights' could not be removed from us without Parliament agreeing to reverse its original (44-year-old) decision. ... when those High Court judges spoke of the loss of the Brisith people's 'rights', it was as if 17.4 million of us had never voted, of our own free will, to relinquish our 'right' to be a citizen of the EU.  Sure, 16.1 million Britons said that they wished to retain the rights (and obligations) of EU membership. But it was always accepted that whichever side won would have the issue settled definitely in its favour" [source].
 

"The judges also ruled that the invocation of Article 50 would lead 'inevitably' to that loss of 'rights', since it set in train an irrevocable process towards EU exit. In fact, this last point is highly contentious. ... Lord Kerr, the man who actually devised Article 50, told the BBC that invoking it would not make Britain's exit from the EU 'irrevocable'. He said: 'You can change your mind while the process is going on.'  This view was endorsed by Jean-Claude Piris, the former chief of the EU's legal service. Not only does this show that matters are much less clear than the High Court suggests, but there is, instead, an obvious moment at which our so-called 'loss of EU rights' would be irrevocable. That is when Mrs May brings before MPs her already announced EU 'Great Repeal Act.'  And, of course, Parliament will have a decisive vote on that: the clue is in the name" [source].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"The act of leaving itself is in the hands of government. It can issue an Article 50 notice. However, there is a subsequent need to alter domestic law to suit and that involves parliament" [comment at source].
 

"There would be no relevant change in the law until the Great Repeal Bill reaches the statute book; until them we are still under the jurisdiction of the Brussels regime" [comment at source].

For Love of Parliamentary Sovereignty

Lawyers:
 

"The stated aim of this legal action [Miller/Mishcon] is to 'protect the UK constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament.'  But there can be little question that its true aim is an attempt to block the implementation of the referendum result through using a pro-Remain majority in Parliament - particularly in the House of Lords - to frustrate the expressed will of the people. Indeed, the whole action is breath-takingly hypocritical: invoking professed concern for the sovereignty of Parliament in order to fetter and ultimately extinguish that sovereignty through continued membership of the EU" [source].
 

"[T]he claimants' appeals to parliamentary sovereignty stem not from a belief in democracy, but the knowledge that parliament could hamper or even nullify the outcome of the referendum" [source].
 

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"This is not about whether Parliament is sovereign. It is about whether the British people are sovereign, and for you [Gina Miller] as a pro-EU supporter to talk about Parliamentary sovereignty in Britain is a bit rich, isn't it!" [Nigel Farage, speaking to Gina Miller on the Andrew Marr programme, 06 November 2016, source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"Pro-parliamentary sovereignty?  Come off it. These are the very same pro-EU types who watched and clapped for years as parliamentary sovereignty was watered down through the EU and branded as xenophobic or a Little Englander anyone who said, 'Wait, shouldn't our parliament be properly sovereign?'  They have no attachment whatsoever to the fundamentals of parliamentary sovereignty. They're only interested in it now because they hope, desperately, that MPs, a majority of whom are Remainers, will vote down what they view as the calamity of Brexit. That is, they're drawn to parliamentary sovereignty as a potential tool for undermining the demos, for opposing the people, for acting against democracy" [source].
 

"Parliamentary sovereignty isn't some academic, legalistic idea that judges defend and allow: it is us made political flesh, the institutional expression of the spirit of the people. For MPs to act against Brexit would violently intensify cynicism of institutions and bring about a crisis of democracy of the kind Britain hasn't experienced for a very long time. Yet this is the price some Remainers are willing to pay to stop Brexit: the hollowing-out of the historic spirit of Parliament" [source].
 

"The truth is that parliamentary sovereignty was exercised when parliament agreed to hold a referendum and to distribute pamphlets which openly stated: 'The government will implement what you decide.'  This act of parliamentary sovereignty entrusted the fate of the EU to the people, and now this must be acted upon - fully and swiftly, because the people want it, not because a judge thinks it might be feasible at a certain point" [source].
 

"Personally, I doubt there will be enough MPs willing to jeopardise their own political careers by going against the explicit will of the people. The wish, may I add, that was expressed in a national referendum convened by an Act of Parliament, for which both Houses voted with a large majority. But the whole process may tie Brexit up in knots for a long time, which is precisely what the unreconstructed Remainers want" [source].

For Love of Democracy


Lawyers:
 

"Contrary to what these legal challenges claim, the UK's unwritten constitution is flexible, and could accommodate itself to the realities of the referendum by allowing direct democracy to trump representative democracy in this instance. The law is never fixed or rigid ... it is 'agile and reflective, and sensitive to its context'. The context to the Brexit court case is the referendum, meaning that the UK's constitution could adapt to allow an episode of popular sovereignty to sideline parliamentary sovereignty" [source].
 

"By failing to advance a case premised on the democratic mandate of the referendum, the government has - perversely - enabled the claimants to pose as defenders of democracy" [source].
 

"What is so astonishing about these various moves to frustrate the result of the referendum is that the people involved here have so little respect for democracy, and so little self-awareness.  They arrogantly believe that their minority views should prevail in the face of the clear majority decision of the British people.  Many of them seem coloured by the view that people who voted to Leave are stupid, uneducated, xenophobic, racist and live outside London, and accordingly their votes are worth less than their own educated [sic] and enlightened [sic] votes cast by people such as them in London or (even better) in Hampstead" [source].


"It is deeply disturbing that any citizens [sic] of this country should be so dismissive of the democratic rights of millions of their decent and intelligent countrymen and countrywomen, who cast their votes in the poll with the highest national turnout for 24 years" [source].


"The astonishing arrogance, petulance, and desperate plotting to negate the democratic decision of the British people which has been displayed since the referendum result was announced is a deeply worrying symptom of the great damage which 40 years of EU membership has done to our sense of national and civic cohesion.  The EU has persistently pursued policies which at every level are designed to weaken the bonds which bind us together as a nation.  Its technique is to recruit an elite inside each Member State which regards its primary allegiance as being to the EU and not the country, and which is rewarded with power and influence in return for keeping the serfs under control.  It is by leaving the EU that we can begin the long term process of healing our nation from this disease, and re-unify our people once again as a proud and independent self-governing nation" [source].
 

"It is deeply objectionable but sadly not unexpected that those who suffer from a deep-rooted contempt for democracy should resort to legal antics of this kind in an attempt to frustrate the democratic decision of the British people" [Martin Howe QC, Chairman, Lawyers for Britain, 04 July 2016, source].
 

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"The result was clear. It was legitimate. MPs and peers who regret the referendum result need to accept what the people decided. Now we need to turn our minds to how we get the best outcome for our country" [Theresa May, PM, 06 November 2016, source].
 

"[I]t takes a pretty special kind of arrogance to think that one person's view trumps that of 33 million" [quoted at source].
 

Pro-Brexit Groups:
 

"MPs who are trying to conflate the Article 50 letter with the nature of the Government's negotiations are simply Brexit deniers, pretending to obey the will of the people but in reality doing everything they can to thwart it. We have consistently argued starting from June 27th that Article 50 should be invoked straight away. Our argument was that invoking Article 50 was essential to stop Brexit deniers from trying to obstruct and overturn the Referendum result. It gives us no pleasure to have been proved right" [source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"The lawyers, commentators and MPs trying to scupper Brexit simply cannot handle the fact that Leave voters profoundly rejected the status quo. And they did so in full knowledge of what they were doing. They aren't stupid; they knew they were ripping up years of entangling legislation and economic relations between Britain and the EU, because that is what they wanted to do. It is this rejection of the elite and the way politics and economics is currently conducted that really rattles leading Remainers, and they are seeking to overturn it, or weaken it, through claiming they are merely 'clarifying' what we voted for. It's paternalistic as well as anti-democratic" [source].
 

"Not many [Remain] MPs will admit it, but their real objective is to stop Brexit altogether. That was encapsulated by the headline on the Guardian's front page commentary by Polly Toynbee rejoicing at the High Court verdict: 'The court's ruling is a chance for MPs to put the national interest first and halt Brexit.'  The truth, inevitably, is the opposite. It is in the national interest for the referendum result to be honoured: anything else would be the greatest betrayal in the history of our democracy - one with unimaginable consequences" [source].
 

"[T]o listen to a small group of pro-EU politicians (their voices predictably amplified by the Remain-backing BBC), court rulings and the judges who make them should be beyond criticism. The chillingly authoritarian logic of that position - that judicial power is absolute and unquestionable - is a t odds with the free speech that is a cornerstone of our free society. ... [W]hile some politicians who backed the EU still resist Brexit, the vast majority of the 16 million Remain voters are fair-minded people who accept that this matter is settled and Britain will indeed leave" [Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 06 November 2016].
 

"The parallel universe in which distinguished and admired statesmen such as Tony Blair and Nick Clegg live contemptuously ignores the feelings of the public. When we decided, between 1832 and 1928, to extend the franchise to every adult in this country, we did so in the knowledge that parliament's sovereignty had become reliant on the will of the people. The people, not all of whom are so stupid as some Remainers contend, choose from time to time to exercise that will in ways that dismay the elites. If the elites don't like it, there are plenty of despotisms around the world - indeed, in Brussels - where they might be happier" [Simon Heffer, The Sunday Telegraph, 06 November 2016].
 

"The notion that this case was a school-prefect-style stab for a clean, constitutional Brexit is shot down by the fact that it was brought by devoted Remainers. The super-wealthy spearhead of the case, Gina Miller, says she was made 'physically sick' by Brexit. She says the dim-witted decision to leave the EU, taken by 17.4m people, is a result of our having been 'lied to' (ie, we were brainwashed) and then choosing to do some 'venting of anger' (ie, we behaved emotionally). ... [T]he court's decision is being celebrated by Remainers who want to hold up (rather than uphold) the people's will. ... They really do think we're idiots. They really think we cannot see through their low, cynical marshalling of the law to prevent democracy, to stop politics, to undermine us" [source].
 

"Let's stop talking in euphemisms. Let's park the blather about 'procedure' and 'process'.  What is happening here is that well-connected, well-off people are using the courts to stymie the democratic will. It is a straight-up assault on democracy, of the sort that when it happens in Latin America or Asia, the very Remainers currently cheering our wise [sic] judges would shake their heads and say: 'Why are those foreigners so uncivilised?'  The court case is a disgrace. It's anti-democratic, anti-politics, fuelled by a dread of the demos and by feelings of 'physical sickness' for what the majority of people think and want. We make them puke. The majority calmly discussed the EU, made a decision, and voted against it. And yet they've been ceaselessly defamed as 'low information' and 'racist' and have watched as their decision has been undermined and held up and relentlessly delegitimised by academics, lawmen and politicians" [source].
 

"MPs celebrating the High Court ruling that Brexit cannot be triggered without a Westminster vote are implying that the British people were too stupid and racist to have been entrusted with a vote in the EU referendum. By implication, they arrogantly think the decision should be left to wise, mature and enlightened MPs - such as those fools who voted Keith Vaz (a man caught offering to buy cocaine for rent boys) onto the Commons Justice Committee" [Peter Oborne, Daily Mail, 05 November 2016].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"Gina Miller, who brought the High Court case, feels sorry for the 17 million people 'tricked' into voting for Brexit. The arrogance of Remainers is astounding. I was no more persuaded by the headline claims of the Leave campaign than I was by the scaremongering of the Remain camp. Rather, I based my decision on wide reading and my own experience of EU-funded programmes" [Letter to The Sunday Telegraph, 06 November 2016].
 

"The High Court has ruled that the Government cannot use the royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 and begin Brexit. ... The ruling will reinforce the determination of Leave voters to ensure that we do indeed leave. It has probably reduced the possibility of any 'soft Brexit', and strengthened the sense of 'them and us'. Meanwhile, MPs know that they have to take into account their constituents' views or risk losing their seats. I am grateful for the law of unintended consequences" [Letter to The Sunday Telegraph, 06 November 2016].
 

"If Brexit means Brexit then Theresa May needs to get a grip on the Remain dissenters whose comments and rhetoric are damaging Britain's future and show complete contempt for the democratic process. As a member of the older generation I'm not surprised by their arrogance because it has been going on for years. But what is really demeaning is that this contempt for democracy is shared by the majority of MPs from all the old political parties, which means we don't have the democracy we voted for. Instead, what we have are political parties following their own agendas and dividing the nation while breaking almost every promise they make before elections and ignoring the will of the majority for the sake of political power" [Letter to The Sunday Express, 06 November 2016].
 

"All these remainers would have us believe they are going to all this trouble simply to ensure the correct procedure is followed in implementing Brexit. They must think we were born yesterday! "   /   "As for Miller - she is clearly being disingenuous. She is reported to have been violently sick when she heard the result of the referendum and when challenged by her son to do something about it she proceeded with this action. In other words her motive was to negate the result of the vote. To claim that she just wanted legal clarity is simply sophistry"   /   "She talks about democracy, but she is just trying to impose her own will on the people because she doesn't like what they decided. That's not democracy"   /    [comments at source].
 

"Today is the 411th anniversary of an attempt to blow up Parliament and everyone in it. I hope that all those presently colluding in thwarting the democratic will of the people bear in mind that a gunpowder plot will be as nothing compared to the consequences of creating dissatisfaction and distrust in the hearts and minds of the electorate. Democracy is a flowering of civilisation that needs constant care and nurture if it is to thrive. Those who are intent on poisoning the roots will pay dearly for their self-interest and hubris" [comment at source].
 

"And so it begins. the Establishment fight back, airily dismissive of what 17 million people voted for in a referendum [that] everyone agreed at the time was binding. And now this from the Remainers and their powerful establishment friends"   /   "These people are hateful and loathsome in their efforts to overturn democracy and the High Court is their willing stooge" [comments at source].
 

"This High Court decision touches upon the fundaments of our democracy: parliament decided on the EU Referendum Act 2015, on which the referendum was based. The people made their decision, government must act. The High Court and the complainants had ample time to bring their complaints before the country went to vote. They didn't. Why not? Because they thought they'd win the Remain vote" [comment at source].
 

"17.4 million very angry Patriots are also warning [MPs]" [comment at source].
 

"It was a clear attempt to thwart the will of the voters (who had been denied any say by the establishment for 41 years). It must not be allowed to succeed" [comment at source].

The High Court and Its Judges

"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice" [Lord Chief Justice Hewart, 1924, in the case of Rex vs Sussex Justices, quoted at source].
 

Lawyers:
 

"For more than 20 years, the Royal prerogative was a Good Thing if it was being used to sign a new Treaty that brought us More Europe. Now that it might mean Less Europe, it turns out to be  a Bad Thing after all. Inadvertently, therefore, Lord Thomas and his colleagues have given us a conclusive argument for Brexit. ... three apparently intelligent, civilised and respectable men have humiliated themselves in public in the service of the supremacy of EU law by producing 32 pages of drivel. The sooner we get this poison out of our judicial system, the better" [source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"It seemed that the learned judges were godlike creatures far above the realm of politics. We were also told, preposterously in my view, that to criticise what they had said was somehow subversive of the rule of law and in some way 'anti-democratic' ... in Britain, where our judges are chosen and promoted largely in obscurity, there is this childish pretence that they are unaffected by political considerations. I obviously don't mean 'party politics', but politics as a set of ideas and principles about society. How could judges not be affected by such beliefs? They are only human beings. ... my question is whether, as their sometimes hysterical defenders contend, senior judges are capable of setting aside their own political views on so important a constitutional questions as leaving the EU" [source].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"Let's take a look at the identity of the judges behind today's High Court Ruling:

• High Court Judge Philip Sales is an old crony of Blair's. He practiced at the law chamber 11KBW of which Blair was founding member, he was appointed to Blair's legal team soon after the 1997 election, where, while becoming one of the highest paid publicly funded lawyers in the country, Sales defended the Government's decision against holding a public inquiry into the Iraq war in the High Court in 2005. Even once Blair left office, Sales' favours to him were not over. Only this summer he OVERRULED the previous High Court decision to allow 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the leadership election, a decision designed to help the Blairites. Sales as good as takes his instructions from Blair, the very man who is publicly seeking to sabotage Brexit.

• The second judge, Terence Etherton was appointed a High Court judge in 2001 while Blair was in office. He was then promoted to Lord Justice of Appeal by Gordon Brown.

• The third judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas is a founding member of the European Law Institute which has the goal of 'enhancing European legal integration'.  Surely a conflict of interests?" [comment at source].
   

"According to the Daily Express: 'ONE of the three judges who today ruled Article 50 must be triggered by Parliament founded a European law group working towards integration with Brussels.'  If my understanding of legal proceedings is correct, it is normal for a judge with a personal interest in any case to rule himself out. I can't help but wonder why it didn't happen in this case. Certainly this alone would seem to give the government good grounds to appeal. The saddest part of this judgement is that it is one more nail in the coffin of trust between ordinary people and the establishment; a trust that honouring the Brexit vote would do much to heal" [comment at source].
 

"Lord Thomas who is presiding over the case brought by Miller is a member of the European Law Institute which is considered a Soros Open Society apparatus since its founding" [source].
 

"Lord Thomas has a conflict of interest, surely, as he was president of the European network of councils for the judiciary, so he was never going to be impartial" [comment at source].
 

"What if the judges have already made up their minds before they entered the court room. Chosen not for their ability to hear cases, but their political belief. No matter what arguments put forward by either side the decision had already been made. All 3 are said to behave been Blairites and one of them Lord Thomas is a founding member of the European Law Institute which has the goal of 'enhancing European legal integration'. Surely a conflict of interests? He should have recused himself or he should have been challenged by the Government lawyer. The judgement could be appealed on this basis alone. Judge Philip Sales is an old crony of Blair's. He practiced at the law chambers 11KBW of which Blair was a founding member. It seems it is possible to select the 'right' judges to hear cases to get the outcome the establishment wants" [comment at source].
 

"Alas the EUphile governments under Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg have stuffed the judiciary, the lords, the legal profession and much of the state sector with dire, lefty EUphiles. The legal profession benefits a great deal from all the legal uncertainty and complexity that the appalling EU courts and legislation forces on to us" [comment at source].
 

"No surprises here, the judges are probably Common Purpose and Remoaners. The government is using the establishment to overthrow the Brexit result but look all innocent so they can claim 'not me gov' thus mitigating any blame themselves, so it's no surprise the High Court is filled with Remoaners. It was probably arranged through the old boys network. It's a tactic long tried and tested by politicians to blame others for policy they have no intention of implementing" [comment at source].
 

"The High Court judges have kow-towed to the EU for years so perhaps no surprise. We would always have had to remove them at some point; now we have confirmation of that need. We need our Cromwell to step forward and remind them who they serve" [comment at source].
 

"I also think the judges had a duty to uphold the integrity of their court and not allow it to be used by a rich and largely anonymous cabal to make our country and its constitution the laughing stock of the world" [comment at source].
 

"Remember, Remember, the Third of November / The Day that Democracy Died / Brexiteers will Remember for Ever and Ever / The Day that our Judges Lied" [comment at source].

The Supreme Court and Its Judges

"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice" [Lord Chief Justice Hewart, 1924, in the case of Rex vs Sussex Justices, quoted at source].
 

Lawyers:
 

Regarding the Government's Appeal to the Supreme Court on 5th December: "In intervening in the appeal, we believe that we are seeking to represent the wider interests of all who participated in the Leave campaign and of the 17.4 million people of this country who voted to leave the EU. The referendum was authorised by parliament to give effect to a clear and unequivocal pledge in the General Election manifesto of the winning party that the people would decide (not merely advise on) the question of our membership of the EU. We believe that the outcome gives rise to a clear and unambiguous constitutional mandate to implement the people's decision to leave which must be respected by government and Parliament, and reject the suggestion that the referendum was merely 'advisory'" [source].
 

Pro-Brexit Groups:
 

"One judge, Lady Hale, has already questioned - in a speech in Kuala Lumper ... if Article 50 could be passed by a simple Act of Parliament or if 'it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act.' All before she has heard a word of evidence in the case" [source].
 

"Lord Neuberger ... is married to Angela Holdsworth, whose views about Leave voters are perhaps best described as 'robust'. She has also commented on the point of law at issue, saying, 'It seems unlikely that a PM could trigger Article 50 without parliament's approval'." [source].
 

"The Supreme Court responded to suggestions that Neuberger and Hale might care to step aside in this case by saying that it was 'absolutely confident that no breach of the code of conduct had occurred'." [source].
 

"One could accept that Lady Hale was merely musing on hypothetical questions while on a break ... One could accept that Lord Neuberger will not be cowed by an angry wife glaring at him across the breakfast table. But that is not the point. As Lord Hewart said, 'even a suspicion' is enough'.  And yet our Europhile Establishment seems determined to plough ahead and allow these two folks to decide on the issue no matter what they or their close relatives may have said or believe.  So, to return to my original question, 'when is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?'  The answer appears to be 'when it favours the cause of the EU'." [source].
 

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"It turns out that one of [the Supreme Court judges] has jumped the gun. On November 9 - less than a week after the High Court ruling - the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, delivered a revealing speech in Malaysia ... her speech raises questions about impartiality. ... she regards herself as a progressive judge (though given that many modern judges share her views, one might more accurately describe her as conformist). ... Far from concealing her trendily liberal views, she gives vent to them at every opportunity. And that, of course, is what she did in her Malaysian speech. There was no necessity to address the subject of Article 50, considering the Supreme Court, of which she is so important a part, is due to hear the Government's submission in a very few weeks. ... None of us can know to what extent Lady Hale's views are shared by other Supreme Court judges or the degree to which they might be influenced by her. Given that at least four of them have strong links with the European legal establishment, it is is difficult to be optimistic about the outcome. ... Perhaps they will seek to avoid a constitutional crisis, not least for the sake of the judiciary. But I fear Lady Hale's speech has made it even more difficult to believe that our judges are truly impartial" [source].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"I would have expected Lord Neuberger to have already announced that he would not participate in the appeal. If he refuses to exclude himself, he should be brought before the Judicial Council. Certainly if he does not exclude himself, a rejection of the appeal by the Supreme Court will be tainted. ... Lady Hale ... should also withdraw from hearing the pending appeal. ... I believe - given the evidence of almost all if not all British judges being Europhiles - the decision of the remaining 9 Lord Justices is already a foregone conclusion. An extremely sad state of affairs" [comment at source].

Who Is Gina Miller?

Journalists and Commentators:
 

"[T]he prime movers behind this legal ruling are the most insidious of all the elites in this country. They are a rabble of stinking rich bankers, financiers, hedge fund buccaneers and sneering, gimlet-eyed investors who give not a single hoot for anyone who doesn't live in one of London's smarter postcodes, ... the conveniently anonymous global rich who flooded London in the Noughties ... For these people the bloated EU, with its endless layers of overpaid executives, pettifogging bureaucrats and impenetrable rules and regulations, its army of lawyers and pen-pushing time-wasters is exactly what is required: a bullying behemoth that baffles and blind-sides ordinary folk ... the Poster girl for this greedy elite is Gina Miller, the Guyana-born wife of a multimillionaire financier who has led the campaign by 'Wrexiteers'; to frustrate the will of the public. ... [M]any of those who have been backing Miller's efforts ... are shadows, cyphers, under-the-radar movers and shakers. They are as far removed from you and I, [sic] the Mr and Mrs Ordinary Folk who voted for Brexit for all the right reasons, as it is possible to get. Few of them will ever have ventured north of Oxford Street let alone into the heartlands where Brexit was won. What interest would they have in clawing back the nation's sovereignty, taking back control of our borders and revitalising our economy?  Britain, for them, is a big beautifully civilised casino where they can spin their wheel, place their bets and quietly make fortunes off everyone else's backs. They are comfortable with the stifling EU: it suits them, they know how to play by its curious self-serving rules and win. Not only must we not allow this spoilt bunch to derail Brexit, we must make sure, afterwards, that life in Britain becomes a lot less easy for them. This selfish and exploitative elite have been at the root of Britain's problems for too long: it is time they were rooted out" [Editorial, The Sunday Express, 06 November 2016].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"Who is Gina Miller? The wife of investment guru Alan Miller who came aboard New Star Hedge Fund and was wooed by Soros. ... Soros has been openly opposed to Brexit. Tapping one of New Star's partners, Gina Miller, to do his bidding would explain how she could exert the influence she has over the entire judiciary and parliament of the UK despite the fact that she is a nobody. Then there is Grahame Pigney [who set up the People's Challenge group] whose LinkedIn site recognises Gina Miller as an associate. How would he know Gina, he's an expat living in France? How can a vote that has been decided by the People - be contested by a couple of wealthy operators?" [source].
 

"Miller, New Star, Lord Thomas, Grahame Pigney, the entire exploiters of the anti-Brexit vote, are now attempting to uproot the voters via pressure from Soros. What say you UK? Who is your Master?" [source].
 

"So the Gov takes our people's taxes and hands over significant sums to the EU so that rich bankers and Gina Miller hedge funds can continue unhindered to trade their services in the EU and make private profits. Think about that... Since only 8% of UK GDP is sold into the EU, 92% will be paying for the benefit of a small group of private individuals. Nice" [comment at source].
 

"This woman is a George Soros sock puppet I am sure. The True and Fair Foundation run by Gina Miller has a trusteeship ... with the 'Philanthropy impact', it says 'Inspiring philanthropy and social investment across borders, sectors and causes', guess who runs 'Philanthropy impact', yep you got it. Gorge Soros. True and Fair Ms. Miller" [comment at source].
 

"This doesn't surprise me much because George Soros is the most insidious and sinister agent of anti-democratic movements in the world today. He is trying to abolish nations, nationhood, borders and people's rights to political freedom in the interest of socialism, internationalism and global government. He is immensely rich and has his fingers in so many pies, it's often difficult to know who the funder and puppet-master is. So now we know that he is backing Remainers bringing a court case under the guise of supporting Parliament's 'rights' to stop Brexit. ... it's frightening to think of how much money he has willed for future interference in, and destruction of, the national sovereignty of people and countries around the world" [comment at source].
 

"Foul treason from 'British nationals'.  Deir de Santos doesn't sound British to me and I'm willing to bet that neither is British in birth, heritage, culture, spirit or loyalty. Some people are playing a very dangerous game with our belief in democracy; they are wreckers and deserve to be wrecked on the rocks of their own hubris. Now its the time for Theresa May to show true grit and determination in imposing the will of the people on the traitors" [comment at source].

General Comments Following the High Court's Judgement

Government Ministers, MPs, MEPs:
 

"I hope the government will now table a motion saying: 'This house approves the sending of an Article 50 letter in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum, any judgement of the courts not withstanding'.  The government should then send the letter" [source].
 

Blogs and UTL Comments:
 

"You say 'I hope the government will now...'  Surely not, for there is all the time in the world for more dithering, for letting matters slide, for allowing uncertainty whilst knaves sow confusion, for missing opportunities, and discarding advantages, for risking the deliverance we have provided ourselves [sic] by the referendum outcome. And all that only costs us c.£850m a month" [comment at source].
 

"I see this case goes next to the Supreme Court and then... to the ECJ. Perhaps the ECJ could just rule that it is 'illegal' for the UK to leave the EU at all"   /   "Britain has sitting MPs and a former PM openly calling for Parliament to ignore the will of 17.4m people. By the same token why can't the current PM just ignore the opinion of three?"   /   "This whole episode reeks of an Establishment stitch-up. Watching a range of media and commentator reactions last night I was struck by how often people said it's not about if we invoke Article 50, it's how. So what are the options? First Class or Second Class post? Email? On scented notepaper or Government letterhead?" [comments at source].
 

"There is of course a good case to argue that going into the EU was, in the first place ultra vires, and we have in fact never actually been a legal part of it" [comment at source].

Barristers' Letter (June 2016)

Lawyers:
 

"You are clearly seeking to overturn the result of the referendum, reached after a democratic vote with a high turn out. ... whatever your own personal views about Brexit, it is wrong to undermine democracy in this way, and it is also disingenuous for the signatories to use their status as Queen's Counsel or as barristers to lend legitimacy to what are clearly personal, if strongly held, views.  As to your letter itself, the referendum surely must be respected and not just 'acknowledged'. ... there was a clear and decisive majority with 17.5m people voting in favour of Brexit and their views are no less important than yours or mine" [source].


"As to the request that a Parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding of the economic consequences, you will surely acknowledge that the voters for Brexit cannot have been impressed by the dire warnings for the economy - perhaps they regarded democracy as a more important ideal to fight for than the short-term effect on the financial markets?" [source].


"Have you given any consideration as to how a letter such as this could be perceived by the general public? Barristers are often perceived as elitist and out of touch, and your letter, with its arrogant and patronising disregard for the result of the referendum can only support that perception. I believe that it would be a poor message for the Bar to send out to the general public that we, as  barristers, will seek to undermine the democratic vote is we don't like it, and in my view this could undermine public trust in out profession" [source].
 

"The letter from 1,000 barristers claims that the result of the referendum is 'advisory' because that Act 'does not make it legally binding'.  Clearly there is something seriously wrong with legal education today if 1,000 barristers can be found with such deep ignorance of the British constitution" [source].

The Battle is Fierce, Friends

"Many analogies were made before the referendum about the children of Israel crying out to God for deliverance from Egypt.

"Well, I am reminded that after they had been released, that wasn't the end of the matter:

'and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, "Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?".'

"Sound familiar?  The whole force of Egypt went out after these freed people, determined to bring them back under their power.  [Pharaoh] pursued them and suddenly [the people of Israel] found they were left with nowhere to turn;  with the Red Sea before them and the power of Egypt behind them, seeking to bring them back under their control.

"When faced with this, the people then turned on Moses as the one who had brought them out, because the situation seemed so dire;  they then wanted to go back under the power from which they had been delivered:

'Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians. For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.'

"However: 'Moses said unto the people, "Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will show you today ... The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace".'

"I don't think this was an instruction not to pray, but rather to not talk against Moses and what God had done.

'And the LORD said unto Moses, "Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they may go forward".'

"The way forward may seem unclear to us, but we know for sure, God can direct our paths if we seek His direction.

"Whatever people say and do in the coming days, let us pray for God's direction and for His decision to stand"

[IFB, July 2016]

Liberty: the Battle for the Very Soul of Britain

The following is an extended extract from Battle for the Very Soul of Britain

"Nine hundred and fifty years ago, between two hillocks at Hastings, an Anglo-Saxon king took an arrow in his eye and England surrendered her independence. That was our last - should I say most recent? - defeat on home soil. King Harold's forces fought valiantly but they had been exhausted by two earlier battles ... A shrewd and ruthless Frenchman, Guillaume of Normandy, seized power and London's Witan parliament was never heard of again. ...

"I have been contemplating poor King Harold a fair amount recently. ... As a schoolboy I visited the northern French town of Bayeux to see [the] tapestry and remember a sting of sorrow as I saw the needlework images of vanquished Anglo-Saxons. It was always the same when I read history yarns about British chieftain Caractacus fighting the Romans on his hilltop and later being paraded in Rome as a chained captive; or gallant ... Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni tribe, charging towards the Roman lines in her chariot ... In such accounts, I always rooted for the Brits. ... I always wanted the dwellers of our dank and foggy, sea-set isle to seize the day. Was it a nascent sketchwriter's innate bias or inherited love of country from my fiercely patriotic parents? Was that love wrong? Is that love wrong? I still feel that way.

"The likes of Mr Cameron and his fellow Europhiles ... presumably feel something different when they look at the Bayeux tapestry. I suppose they experience  a glow of quiet satisfaction that William and his forces of European integration over came the locals. ... A deep-rooted part of me rebels against that. ... I grieve for the freedoms that were squashed. And I feel just the same when I look at an castle built by English lords to crush dissent in Scottish and Welsh territory. My sympathies lie with the invaded. ...

"Hereward the Wake [a] Lincolnshire freeman ... had his lands taken by the Normans and decided to do something about it. For a few years after 1066, Hereward and his small army operated out of the Cambridgeshire town of Ely, then an island. They were beaten only after a treacherous monk showed the Normans one of the secret paths to Ely through the Fenland marshes. ... Almost a millennium after the event, I feel a lively indignation on Hereward's behalf. What a cur that monk was to betray him. What if Hereward had continued to oppose William? Could he have combined with the still unconquered Celts and Northumbrians to drive out the 'ingengas'? Or was Norman rule as inevitable as supporters of the EU now say their governing body is inevitable? As for that treacherous monk, was he a sort of Roland Rudd of his day ... the City PR smoothie pulling strings for the Remain camp? ...

"My support for Hereward may reflect a surfeit of foolish romanticism. But it may also echo enduring truths about the importance of self-determination and of remaining true to one's ancestral heritage. For what are we if we deny the past? What is the point of being British if we are not able to say who governs us? And let there be no doubt: if we vote to stay ion the EU, we will not be able to dislodge the elite that runs Brussels. They will be impervious to our democratic disapproval. They will be as safe as William and his shaven-headed Normans were in their mighty castle keeps. ...

"The Leave campaign ... has urged voters to quit the EU for a range of reasons ... Hereward the Wake ... would have heard Vote Leave talk of how we must 'take control' and would surely have thought 'I don't really want control - I want liberty.' ...

"It would obviously be good for us to retrieve national control of trade decisions, tax matters, ... immigration policy ... But where is the optimism in Leave's campaign? Where is the appeal to something more positive, more human, more ardent? The hearts of Hereeward the Wake and his 'green men' would have burned for something greater; something more essential. You could call it self-determination or independence but it is basically the right to plant your feet on the clifftops of Kent, raise your eyes to the cloud-scudding sky, and relish your ancient liberty as a free-born Briton. ...

"I think of my grandfathers. One was wounded three times on the Western Front in World War I. The other landed in Normandy - Normandy! - just before D-Day to clear the beaches of mines. They fought for king and country, yes, but they fought most of all for an idea: freedom. The days of ancestral sword and scramasax may have passed but that powerful notion of liberty, the spirit of British dissent which flared so wonderfully in the East Anglian fens 950 years ago, must never be allowed to die. Without it, we would be an island without pride, an island shorn of soul"

[End of Extract]

Norman and Saxon

"'My son,' said the Norman Baron, 'I am dying, and you will be heir to all the broad acres in England that William gave me for my share
when we conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own, and grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.

"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears; But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the country to the poorest chained serf in the field, they'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say. Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.

"They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark. It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind, for a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man-at-arms you can find.

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funeral and feasts. Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we', 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I'. Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"

[Poem by Rudyard Kipling]

The Tower of Babel: EU / UN / NWO

"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.  And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.  And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.  And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.  And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.  And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.  And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.  Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.  So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.  Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 10:32-11:9).

"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates in this realm,
whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subjected to any foreign jurisdiction"
[The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion ... as by Law Established, Article 37, quoted at source]

"And I do declare that no Foreign Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction
Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.  So help me God"
[The Bill of Rights, 1689, Costin & Watson, The Law & Working of the Constitution, Documents 1660-1914]

"It was one of the cleverest strokes of those who took us into the EEC in 1972 to invent a sort of mutated, cancerous form of parliamentary sovereignty
in order to destroy the essence and reality of that sovereignty and to make Queen, Lords, Commons, and People into subjects of a foreign power, now the EU.
Ministers who, as Privy Counsellors, had assented by their most solemn oath to maintain the sovereignty of the Crown against all foreign powers whatsoever,
initiated, maintained, and deepened that subjection over forty years.  The people have now democratically and finally rejected this process"
[Edward Spalton, Chairman, Campaign for an Independent Britain]

© Elizabeth McDonald     https://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk