Moves to prevent No Deal are unconstitutional

By August 27, 2019February 18th, 2021No Comments

No parliamentary motion can prevent a No Deal Brexit. If such a motion purported to be binding upon government it would be unconstitutional, because it would encroach upon the prerogative power of the executive to conduct relations with foreign powers. It would also outrage both logic and democracy by flouting the decision of the Referendum and the Article fifty statutes.

Paste the link below into your browser to read more about how Treason May’s written in Berlin remain treaty, even rehashed with its backstop protocol excised, is a betrayal of our sovereignty and flouts the decision of the Referendum.

Churchill’s words in 1940 come to mind.

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be.

To those who say Churchill’s words seem over the top when applied to leaving a customs union, I say the EEC/EU was always more than simply a trading bloc. Its real insidiously sinister nature was concealed from the British people by the political and media Establishment in the pre-internet days of the 1960s and early 1970s. The words ‘ever closer union’ were in the original Treaty of Rome that established the EEC in 1957.

The people is sovereign in the British political system of government. Parliament forgets this fact at its peril. I don’t trust BoJo not to sell us out with another written in Berlin political declaration and remain treaty that would lock us into a so-called transition period. During such a ‘transition period’ and even for generations after it our parliament and courts would be subject to the direct effect and supremacy of EU law, with the Court of Injustice of the EU (CIEU), without a British judge, as final arbiter of any disputes.

During the ‘transition period’ the EU would move the goal posts by making new laws to which we would be subject. If BoJo meant what he said about leaving without an Article fifty deal then why were Merkel and Macron looking so happy at the G7 summit? Summit stinks and I suspect it’s the familiar odour of Establishment betrayal. Vote Patria.