Medal for meddling Miller.

She deserves a Medal!

On 19.7.16 an unknown person took the limelight in front of a group calling itself ‘People’s Challenge’. She and other supporters raised the possibility of a legal challenge to the procedural consequences of the outcome of the UK referendum of the 23rd July. From that date up to the 3.11.16 when the case was heard by the high court, she and her colleagues were treated to a degree of incredulous arrogance at the temerity of her placing the challenge ahead of the ‘will of the people’.

Ms Gina Miller was born in British Guiana moving to England when she was a child. She pursued a commercial career and has become a philanthropist and co-founder of the London-based investment fund manager SCM Private. As the lead claimant in the challenge for the most important constitutional case in decades, she sought not to overturn the result of the referendum but clarify the legality of an action that would stem from it, something her opponents to the whole idea of a challenge, would not countenance in any way.

Her petition was accepted.

The essence of the challenge, which she continually expressed, was not to discredit the decision of the referendum that had no legal basis anyway, but to hold the government to observing the legality of the UK ‘constitution’ which the enacting of the result (article 50) would conflict with. Although the UK does not have a written constitution to protect the people from the malfeasance of government’s executive action, there are a number of Acts, Laws, Documents, Treaties, custom and practices together with the power of the separation of the judiciary and state that offers a measure of ratification in disputes including the involvement of European court as a last resort! 

This dispute is whether parliamentary executive as a body or particular government ministers (cabinet) have the authority to formally declare to the European Parliament that Britain is notifying the EU of its intention of withdrawing from the EU under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which states that any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

Her case was that the government did not have the necessary power to invoke Article 50 using, as it had claimed, that its executive powers, under the royal prerogative, were sufficient for David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, to formally announce Britain's exit on behalf of  Prime Minister May's Cabinet. And that parliament as a whole had a constitutional right to scrutinise the terms applicable to and preceding the intention to withdraw from the EU with Article 50, not without reference to the UK’s constitution.

Following a three-day hearing in October, in November the Lords Chief Justice, Lord Thomas gave their ruling and ruled that the government's arguments are "contrary to fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament". 

See:https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

Not surprisingly the press and many notable Britex MP’s were highly incensed at the decision and again some vitriol was unjustifiably heaped on Ms Miller with some MP’s so infuriated that they willingly started to condemn the individuals of the high court, attempting to impugn their personal standing and undermine the judgement as undemocratic, an attack on government itself and an attempt to undermine ‘the will of the people’ that gives (assumed) legitimacy to the result of the referendum.

The cabinet predominately held by leading Brexiteers are to appeal the decisions on the 5.12.16 to the Supreme Court. There is a great sense of urgency as the government wants to deliver to the EU the intention to enact Article 50 in March 2017 even though with the judgement it is abundantly clear that the triggering of Article 50 will conflict with existing laws and revoke a range of peoples constitutional rights and denying the whole parliamentary process the scrutiny it has a right to expect under democratic accountability provided by the electoral process.

As this decision is very important, the government will exert as much pressure as they can to overturn it and will rely upon the vagueness of the interpretation of the variety of treaties that the UK signed up to even knowing that the complexity of incorporating EU law does have precedence and cannot simple be ignored. There is some evidence to suggest that the rush to lay Article 50 before the EU has much to do with known dubiousness of the legality conflicting with the UK’s ‘constitutions’, its effect on its key provinces – Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales and territories together with the overall uncertainty of exit terms and wish to bypass objections to it against a likely protracted appeal to the ultimate court of the EU. Using Article 50 which has 5 paragraphs to it, the first paragraph upon which the government takes its authority to enact it states “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” does not confer any right to ignore ancient constitutional rights written or not, which government is apt to do on the basis of ‘do it unless or until someone catches us out’

Leaving aside the machination that will arise to the interpretation of  the words and intentions of the complex written treaties etc. with the tussle for legitimacy for the government to carry out the disputable ‘will of the people’ to exit the EU, a number of things are disturbingly very startling. Now the brexiteers have to place before the people their plan to show what is in store leading up to and after an exit. An explained process is something that every one of them has shown a remarkable lack of knowledge of actual procedure not to realise the intricate nature of driving people to an incomprehensible position. Their stance of denying and ridiculing all contra opinions and warning of the dangers an ill-considered rush to launch an exit Article 50, at any cost, is tantamount to outright constitutional dictatorial incompetence.

Prior to and during the early stage of Ms Millers challenge, not one notable MP from political parties like Labour or the Conservative (the liberals wanted a referendum rerun) or indeed from any notable commercial sector, raised any effort to place a challenge of their own to a judicial constitutional test. This means that they were all quite happy to have a Brexit – any Brexit and did not even understand themselves the complexity or legal standing of triggering Article 50. They did not seek clarity nor did they openly support Ms Miller as a matter of constitution and democratic process.

Whether the decision stands or falls; which either way is entirely a subjective analytic interpretation of words, meaning, intent etc of the relevant treaties; it has taken one person to hold the state to task. To have it pressurised to respond to threats to the unwritten constitution, to see it attempt to negate people’s rights enshrined in historic constitutional documents as safeguards against the executive.

Ms Gina Miller has performed one of the most ambitious and important voluntary services to the whole of the UK public realm that no one else saw fit to consider. One might assume that all of those public figures that venomously opposed her and many that quietly murmured weak acquiescence of support had no idea what the implication of the referendum meant and absolutely no expertise to put it into the context of an effect on the UK’s constitution. They were happy with the ignorance of the unfolding resulting mess and being seen as not to contest the miss-guided ‘will off the people’ a situation brought about by some 80 ego driven Euro sceptical Politicians and helped by an ineffective PM to pander to problems with his own political party.     

Where many of  the ‘great and the good’ get a medal for often doing what they are paid to do, singularly enriched as well, without really having a wider civil or democratic effect; here is one person, Ms Miller, that against the establishment and media pressure, raised an extremely important constitutional issue over looked and unchallenged by experts. She brought it to public attention and although extremely inconvenient to the state, forces the preservation and recognition of the UK ‘constitution’. As it is unwritten, it is always under threat, to be ignored, to be reinterpreted as an executive desires to fit with its policies and dogma without an expressed mandate.

Without a thankless willing challenger, things that protect the people and the people themselves, become less important, lost to the power of the establishment that knows best.    

Give that woman a big gong for her public spirited action.

If you want to get mind-blown by the various arguments so far, look at:-

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/

Renot

811161730

Enlighten the righteous and wicked alike.

Epistle to America.

Throughout history it has often been wondered why, at unaccounted times, a culture seemingly so successful apparently goes barmy and displays such extremes of divergent actions and views that the entire edifice of its civilisation is placed under threat to the point of allowing, what might be consisted of self inflicted destructive acts and within a short period unravels, for a time, its social cohesion and civility of purpose. Baring any direct external pressures that fall upon the culture to coerce a reaction like say resolute fractional conflict, resource depletion, environmental degradation or war; the point of the cause of the breakdown is often placed in the persona of usually one or a caucus or renegade actors with the application of a position of power and influential force.

Some examples might be, in recent times; Hitler of Germany, Poll-Pot of Cambodia, Radovan Krardiz el al - Bosnia and Herzegovina (Balkans war), Saddam Hussein - Iraq, the Hutu political elite of Rwanda, or Bashar al-Assad of Syria. On anyone of these or others of singular note may be placed the blame for taking their country to insanity and there is no comfort in thinking that as these countries so afflicted where mostly not westernised without ingrained democratic principles. That the insanity was / is localised and is unlikely to be a script followed by more stable countries is a moot point. However, transient comfort can be taken in the belief that the same difficulties cannot unexpectedly arise elsewhere, yet it ought not to be taken as permanent state. 

On 8.11.16 President Trump is likely to take the white house of the USA. It may be by a small margin but it will be enough to give him executive power and wield it in a way no one has ever done before. To get to this state, the divisive nature of America politics and its toxic exposition played out to a world audience leaves many astounded, not just at the deviousness falsity of the whole campaign but more importantly the exposed fracture of the internal civil structure that has created such subversive covert apprehension. This is a dangerous energy that may not be easily managed away.

Although just now it seems that Senator Hillary Clinton has a small lead, the polls do not really address why people vote one way or another and of prime importance is the secret undecided’s. Despite the sound policies that she has mentioned against Trumps crass inane policy vapid verbosity; it is astounding to see how easy people can be swayed with verbal sound bites that only have a visceral meaning yet resonates to produce such diversity of opinion and eventual choice. He plays to the American dream, individuality and the disfranchised; she plays to inclusiveness, the unity of purpose and those of considerate nature. All avoid the state of the American social order and why/how it has fallen into the position of a third world disunity culture. It is on that basis that Trump is president.

It will not matter if, by some miracle, Hillary Clinton pulls a slim win. The damage to the consciousness of the country is done and the system will not let her confront the causes of it.

This proposed outcome, from the voting turnout is driven by one factor; one might call it (using a colloquial intemperate expression) the ‘fuck off’ factor. Too many people now and a rapidly rising number are being disconnected from the ability to be self sustaining; they have no stake in the wealth of the nation and have been cast aside as unimportant by the rapacious economic machinery. Far too much wealth is coalescing in the hands of a few, individually and corporately, taking no interest in the mess they are primarily creating believing that it is their right to be privilege in the ‘free market’. It does seem that a turning point is being reached. More people are becoming angry at the inability to change a system that allows no substantive transformations and it may be that they are now looking for a lightning rod to incinerate the perceived causes of economic ossification - the rich get richer while the working and poor get less.

Trump may not be the best qualified, indeed there is nothing to mark any competence within him but he will get the ‘fuck off’ vote to the establishment and all in it, to cause change. Any change will do and so the insanity begins.        

Why should rational people take a decision that, with a balanced view appears to be against a better judgement. With the USA in such precarious divisive position; one might offer that it is down to a lack of information intelligence, a situation where the individual arrives at a conclusion that is bereft of salient factors that have a decisive bearing on the way a consideration is reached. Such ‘factors’ are then formulated into a view that may have little relevance to the situation being decided upon. Such situations and decisions are never just a binary choice; Him or Her, IN or Out, Britain in the EU or Britain out; the winner does not take all with them and on small margins would do well to look to the strength of the plethora of reasons that eventually construct a resolution for one choice over another. This construction of choice division is no different to the UK’s “Brexit means Brexit” dogma now reaching its precipice and the way it was built up into the referendum, was, like now in the US, an extraordinary fabrication of a stage set piece. The result of that process too as in the UK was a ‘fuck off’ vote by an element of populace in discrete areas but unlike the US where one can wave a gun and constitution about if all else fails, over time the English terrorist can only do a useless peaceful demonstration against the stupidly of the disconnected unconcerned government and elites. People are revolting across the democratic spectrum of the west; if you are not worried now you will not realise what is imminent.  

© Renot

511162359