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".
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:-
Renot
811161730
Labels: Brexit, High Court, Ms Gina MIller
posted by Renot at 9:45 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home