November 3, 2016
- Where the rule of law
reigns, democracy flourishes as UK government loses case
in court over triggering moves to start the process of
leaving the European Union.
In what has been seen as a landmark
ruling, the High Court has ruled that Parliament needed
to have a say before the government of Prime Minister
Theresa May can trigger the process of leaving the
European Union as voted by UK citizens during the
historic referendum on whether the UK should stay in or
leave the EU.
The results across the UK showed an
overall vote in favour of leaving (52% for leaving and
48% for staying) but before starting the formal process
of leaving negotiations have to be made between the
government and the European Union before the formal
separation process begins with the triggering of the
much talked about
The Theresa May government had
resisted a Commons debate on the issue insisting that
the people, in their vote, had decided that the UK
should leave and that Brexit (Britain exiting the
European Union) should be just that - leaving the
European Union without the benefit of Parliamentary
debate and input that would help guide the government in
moves to start the formal process of leaving the
European Union. (On this page - you will find
today's judgement and summary)
today's ruling thus -
"Investment manager Gina Miller, who
brought the case, said outside the High Court that the
government should make the "wise decision of not
She said: "The result today is about
all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our
United Kingdom and all our futures."
Government lawyers had argued that
prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect
"to the will of the people".
But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord
Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared:
"The government does not have power
under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to
Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European
Union." The three judges looking at the case found there
was no constitutional convention of the royal
prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in
legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50
would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that
the government cannot change or do away with rights
under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do
so. Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord
Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does
not express any view about the merits of leaving the
European Union: that is a political issue."
A statement is to be made to MPs on
Monday but the government says it has no intention of
letting the judgement "derail Article 50 or the
timetable we have set out". Brexit Secretary David Davis
said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of
Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50 - so
would be subject to approval by both MPs and peers.
But the government was going to
contest that view in an appeal, and said the referendum
was held only following "a six-to-one vote in the
Commons to give the decision to the British people".
"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m
of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to
leave the European Union. We are going to deliver on
that mandate in the best way possible for the British
national interest," he told the BBC.
The government expressed its
disappointment at today's ruling but stated it would be
appealing to the Supreme Court. This is what the
separation of powers in a democracy and the realm of
good governance are all about.
Can you imagine this happening in the
fiefdom of the rat with a compromised not fit for
purpose Supreme Court?
No way. The rat is judge, jury and
executioner - thanks to a hopeless bunch of self-serving
un-honourables called Parliament and a Judiciary that
fears its own shadow and has made itself a laughing
stock in the annals of jurisprudence.
The New Statesman had a headline - "Government
loses battle to trigger Article 50 without consulting
Parliament" and continues -
"MPs campaigning against a hard Brexit
are cheering a High Court ruling that the government
cannot trigger Article 50 without parliamentary
permission. Theresa May's government, formed in the
aftermath of the Brexit vote, claimed it could trigger
Article 50 without parliamentary approval, through the
use of a Royal Prerogative.
Its argument hinged on the 1972
European Communities Act, which it said gave provision
for acting in this manner. But the court said it did not
accept the argument put forward by the government, and
found "nothing" in the text of the 1972 Act to support
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron
said: “Given the strict two year timetable of exiting
the EU once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that
the government now lay out their negotiating to
Parliament, before such a vote is held."
Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit
secretary, said: “Labour accepts and respects the
referendum result and recognises that we are leaving the
EU. But the role of Parliament in deciding how we exit
is vital. "The court made clear today that the Prime
Minister was wrong to attempt to sideline the House of
Commons and public scrutiny. The government should now
urgently review its approach."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "Labour
respects the decision of the British people to leave the
European Union. But there must be transparency and
accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit."
The pound has increased in value
against the dollar in the wake of the judgement. It may
reflect the fact many Remain voters hope Parliament will
be able to obstruct a hard Brexit and broker a deal that
includes some form of access to the single market, and a
more flexible approach to free movement.
The vast majority of MPs backed
Remain, including a slim majority of Conservatives.
Nicky Morgan, a Tory MP strongly backing Remain,
tweeted: "Right that Parliament should vote on
legislation to trigger Article 50. Sovereignty regained
from EU should go to sovereign UK Parliament."
Her fellow Tory Remainer, Anna Soubry,
tweeted that the government should accept the court's
ruling. And in a tongue-in-cheek reference to May's
comment that "Brexit means Brexit", shadow Home
secretary Diane Abbott tweeted: "Parliamentary
sovereignty means parliamentary sovereignty."
First Minister of Scotland, Nicola
Sturgeon, who is lobbying for a soft Brexit, tweeted
that the judgement was "significant indeed".
The case was brought by Gina Miller, a
wealth manager, alongside a crowd-funded group called
the People's Challenge, led by Grahame Pigney, a
semi-retired trade unionist. Pigney told The Staggers he
simply believed Parliament should be sovereign. After
the verdict, he said he was ready to fight any appeal by
the government "with the same vigour and commitment".
And for those who really believe that
the gallows at Pademba Road was being readied for the
execution of convicted murderers and other criminals -
Here is a situation that has been
created where the rat is greater than the Constitution
as interpreted by the hapless Supreme Court led by a
weak and lily-livered Valesius Thomas and his gang who
when the time came for speaking truth to power wobbled
and allowed a criminal enterprise headed by the rat to
carry the day in illegally getting rid of an elected
Imagine if you will, when the criminal
enterprise decides to fudge cases against opposition
politicians and those associated with them charging them
with treason and other serious offences that carry the
Think of what chances those to be
murdered by the state have in defending themselves
against a criminal gang which passes for a state
government in Sierra Leone.
Imagine if you will, the scenario that
will be played out in a macabre court drama where the
verdict will be known even before charges are preferred
and their victims are arraigned in court on trumped up
Imagine, if you will, as they did in
the GMT Kaikai and Francis Mischek Minah matter and that
of Sorie Fornah where Presiding Judges are directed by
State House and where evidence is cooked up to present
what looks like a case.
After the guilty verdict would come
the usual appeals, first to the Court of Appeal and then
to the final arbiter, the Supreme Court. Those accused
whom they would wish to murder would have had their fate
sealed even before all the charade.
Remember what we reported after the
main opposition SLPP headquarters were attacked,
vehicles set on fire, offices ransacked, women allegedly
Kindly recall that after that event,
at a meeting of the APC operatives attended by one I B
Kargbo who was then Information minister, one of them
suggested that the SLPP members should have been charged
with a number of offences that include destabilising the
state, threats to state security and attempts to
overthrow the government.
Think, think and think again.
The smoke and mirrors rat having
cowered the Judiciary and Parliament and even the rather
hopeless and ineffective SLPP opposition party into
submission is now ready to execute those it sees fit to
get rid off using the judicial process.
Not a word from
that laid-back and ineffective Minority Leader
Bernadette Lahai who is reported to feed off the
droppings from the rat and loving it.