MENU
Brexit

Gerard Batten on the High Court

Whilst this website does not endorse any particular Political Party, I have reproduced an email shot from Gerard Batten MEP that I received simply because it contains a considerable amount of information both here and in links that I believe that the Readership should be informed of.

Please remember; this is NOT an endorsement of UKIP in favour of any other party.

 

Dear friends,

First – hail to our new Party Leader, my friend Paul Nuttall, and his team!

Paul, we’ve placed our trust and faith in you, and are confident you will deliver. I hope the newly invigorated NEC (results to be declared in a couple of days) will make us even stronger, for we sure need to be strong now.

HELPING THE SUPREME COURT DO THE RIGHT THING


UKIP
knows only too well that in the Battle of Brexit which lies ahead, an array of forces seek to undermine the people’s verdict expressed on June 23. These enemies of democracy grow ever bolder and ever more devious and dishonest.
I’m not referring to comedic figures like David “Mastermind” Lammy, Kenneth “not binding” Clarke, Diane “motorbike lass” Abbott, Tim “who?” Farron or the fresh Libdem, Sarah “clueless” Olney (pictured below), who claimed it was notclear what the people voted for in the EU Referendum, so another Referendum is needed, but it was clear what the people voted for when they voted for her, so no second election will be needed in Richmond Park…  Brainy, isn’t she?

As I recently asked my BBC interviewer, just where do they find these people?Alas, our judiciary apparently prefers divagating about 19th century hostelry to acknowledging that, despite the Referendum being mightily rigged by the Government and its familiars to return a “Remain” result, more than 17.4 million people voted for us to leave the EU.  Put simply, we won, they lost.

It appears to me that some of our seniormost judges have also lost – lost their way, that is, forgetting that Parliament, Government and the Judiciary are all servants of the people, not their masters.  They derive their authority from us – and when we have spoken so clearly, as we did in June, they shall listen.

Holding your nose, click here for Grauniad article (warning: any resemblance to the truth is probably accidental) on the High Court ruling of November 3.  As expected, omitted from the coverage is an admission that without UKIP, the Referendum would never have taken place, let alone have been authorised by such an enormous majority (of 544 to 53, i.e. 91.1%, in the June 9, 2015 vote in the House of Commons).  Only the SNP, that implacable foe of the UK and of common sense, opposed that bill.

But when those LibLabCon MPs gave holding a Referendum an overwhelming Parliamentary mandate, they underestimated our People’s Army, and so did not anticipate that we would go on to soundly beat them and vote to leave.
Now that has happened, the scoundrels want to disclaim their own decision.

London MEP Gerard Batten, recently appointed Mr Brexit by Paul Nuttall, is already well-known for his excellent F.A.Q. on the Referendum (click here to download), wherein he answers all those tricky questions non-UKIP politicians dodge.  Gerard too anticipates that the best we may expect in the forthcoming Government appeal (against the perverse High Court decision that Parliament has the power, or even the duty, to ignore the result of the largest vote ever held in the UK!) is a 4-7 loss, probably being declared in mid to late January.

While my capable team plans (as no doubt so are their counterparts in other regions of the country) an instant, robust, street-level, city-wide response to such a Supreme Court verdict, attracting national and international press coverage and signing up lots of new members angered by the injustice of it all, Gerard has been busy too, consulting with Benjamin Wrench, a barrister with whom I Recklessly jousted in the evening in Rochester in November 2014.

Please click here to download Gerard’s ‘The Supreme Court’s Nelsonian Eye. This scores a bulls-eye, exposing the doublethink, if not blatant hypocrisy, demonstrated by some judges, and presenting some on the Supreme Court (many of whom are recognised by the public as Europhiles) with a dilemma:
Without there having been a relevant change in law, how can the Supreme Court reconcile using the Royal Prerogative in 1972 (for “Join”) but not using it in 2016 (for “Leave”)?

They’ve already staunchly refused to let UKIP take part (as an “intervener”) in the proceedings, our 3.9 million votes and Brexit credentials notwithstanding:

Can’t find a Brexiteer anywhere in that Court…  Even the Attorney General who presented the Appeal was a Remainian.  But, just perhaps, some of the eleven deliberating Justices will get to read this communication.  Indeed, this flies far and wide, reaching even Chuka Umunna, who still rues his crowing that we didn’t know how to email, and his 649 colleagues, many of whom – or many of their staff – repeatedly open my emails, and click on our links.  (We do know).

Gerard’s paper provides our bewigged Great and Good with food for thought and reflection, and forewarns them of the depth of public anger they will face.  We solemnly promise to bring up this argument repeatedly and persistently:
How can the Supreme Court reconcile deploying the Royal Prerogative in 1972 (for “In”, when all we appeared to be joining was an innocuous free-trade organisation) being O.K., but later deploying it in 2016 (for “Out”, where what we were escaping is a grotesque, meddling, greedy, dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, bankrupt, anti-democratic superstate) not being O.K.?

Ironically, if the Supreme Court still does what the bookies and I predict it will, Theresa May could yet be forced to take the route Gerard Batten advocated from the get-go – a repeal of ECA72, rather than using Article 50.  While that issue is too complex to analyse here, and I’m not clever enough anyway, the ECA72 route means that we can pick and choose, at our own pace, what EU- sourced legislation to repeal, what to fine-tune, and what to leave in place.

I trust Theresa May’s cohort will again carefully read, and re-read, Gerard’s F.A.Q.  What is UKIP policy today becomes Conservative policy tomorrow.

THE CASEY REVIEW

Louise Casey has been a career social worker administering benefits (she said people don’t modify their behaviour to claim (more) benefits, IMO a quite astounding POV), “Respect Czar”, Victims’ Commissioner, etc., etc.  While serving as the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit Commissar, she threatened to “deck them one” (the “them” referring to No. 10 under Bliar).  Far from earning her an ASBO, Gordon Brown rewarded her in the 2008 Birthday Honours List!

Recently Casey has come up trumps; her review of the Rotherham tragedy wasn’t a full cover-up and so ruffled more than a few feathers.  Her follow-up “review into opportunity and integration” was sat on by the Home Office for several months because it contained more than a few Home Truths.  After public outcry, it was finally published on December 5. You can download the Executive Summary by clicking here or the full report (2.5 Mb) by clicking here.

Even though the numbers Casey quotes are only official ones (which conceal the scale of the problem – supermarkets well know this from the quantity of food they sell and the weight of waste produced), the report presents a very, very disturbing picture indeed.  From the summary, I draw your attention to the sections on Immigration (paras 17-28), Settlement and segregation (paras 29-39), Responses (paras 40-44) and Social exclusion (paras 45-54).

But you could have just asked UKIP, Louise.  We’ve known pretty much everything stated in your “review”, and have known it for many years, even far back when solving the enormous problems caused was relatively easy.
It may come as news to the motley crew of fools, bigots, fibbers and deniers of LibLabConGroanRemoanBBC – but we know what it is at which they excel:

ADVERSITY AND SURVIVAL

Recent rumours of my own demise were somewhat exaggerated.  However, how many of these beauties I’ve pictured below (click on the image to discover how I see them) have survived unscathed the recent developments in Europe?

None of them, I think.  What’s the collective noun for that lot?  A flange, I say.  I anticipate having much fun while visiting my new friends in the USA, and regaling them with anecdotes.  They’ll soon meet these characters in person, plus God’s Gift to UKIP – one Jeremy Corbyn.

Neither have we forgotten their vile warnings and threats, now superseded by, or refuted by, actual events, nor will we ever let the public forget them:

A request – email me with suggestions for a short, pithy, punchy headline message to be used in a new UKIP leaflet we’re designing, initially for London (do bear the target audience in mind), and which (if successful) may be rolled out nationally.  A bottle of (English) champers awaits the competition winner.

Thanks to The Spectator for the cartoon – we kippers can, and do, laugh at ourselves.  Do click on every pic in this email – a surprise or two lingers there.

On that libatious note – have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year of Liberation from the sinking EU ship’s craziness, destitution – and jackboot.

Leave a Reply

2 Comments on "Gerard Batten on the High Court"

Help put the World to rights and leave a Comment

  Subscribe  
Notify of
mike5262015
Guest
I have a problem with understanding my country. – You see I always thought GB/UK was a Democracy, but it appears that I was wrong. Those in politics are voted for by the people, and the Courts are given Laws by the Government, that the majority of the people have voted for, but that seems to have all gone for a ball of chalk. Perhaps someone can correct me here, the question on the referendum ballot that was open to all adults in GB/UK. was do you wish to be IN or OUT of the E.U. ? The people voted… Read more »
Jennifer Lindley
Guest

Thank you Peter, for this collection of interesting and useful info.

MENU
Powered by: Wordpress
%d bloggers like this: