As an undergraduate I’d have to appear before my tutor once a week and read out my efforts in answer to an essay question. The tutor was a leading expert, or indeed the leading expert in his or her field. They knew their stuff, and a lot more, while we students groped towards a preliminary understanding of the subject.
Clearly there was a gulf in both knowledge and capability between student and tutor. Only the arrogance of youth could carry you through the experience which at times could be embarrassing.
This is how the eleven rogue members of the UK Supreme Court ought to be feeling following their atrocious 24 page ruling last week which erroneously declared Boris Johnson’s prorogation to be “unlawful”.
My post on this last week was written after reading the 3 page summary of the court decision and the full 24 page contrivance through, just once.
Since then I have read various expert’s assessments. It was prompted by a letter in last weekends Sunday Telegraph:
“Sir – As a retired member of the judiciary, I may speak freely.”
“The Supreme Court judgment has brought us all into disrepute. It does so because it has presented as law that which is plainly ideology. This conclusion is ineluctable, given that the court has been forced to invent a “reasonableness” test against which it can appear legitimately to assess the Government’s behaviour and thereby arrogate to itself the royal prerogative.”
“It needed to do so in order to achieve its objective, and also had to overcome the judgment of the Divisional Court, the members of which could not have been more distinguished. In my respectful view, the Divisional Court’s judgment is impeccable and remains a true statement of the law.”
His Hon David Higgins
Richmond, Surrey
This damning assessment from someone who will know better than I do, led me to read the Divisional Court’s decision [see references below]. Putting that document alongside the so called “Supreme” court decision makes it clear who the real experts are in this matter and who the faltering students.
But if that is not enough to condemn the eleven members of the Supreme Court, the assessments by two Oxford law professors must be conclusive.
Emeritus professor of law at Oxford, John Finnis is scathing and surely conclusive in his appraisal of the Supreme Court decision. It confirms the verdict given above by David Higgins in his letter to the Sunday Telegraph [29th September 2019].
I was led to Professor Finnis’ appraisal by a letter to the Daily Telegraph on October 1st from another judge, His Honour Charles Wide, QC.
Charles Wide QC states in that letter:
“The outcome of the Supreme Court case is extraordinary and unexpected, not least because of the previous meticulous judgment to the contrary by an exceptionally distinguished Divisional Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice (the head of the judiciary of England and Wales), the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.”
“Compelling criticism of the Supreme Court’s reasoning can also be found in Professor John Finnis QC’s paper, published by Policy Exchange.”
It was from Policy Exchange on line that I learned of the assessment by Oxford Professor of Law, Richard Ekins. His appraisal came after the Divisional Court decision, and before the Supreme Court hearing. Ekins recommends the Divisional Court’s appraisal to the Supreme Court as the correct position to confirm at their coming deliberations.
The Supreme Court, however, chose to ignore the English Divisional Court and Professor Ekins, and go instead with the wholly novel submissions from Lord Pannick, QC for Gina Miller, and to confirm the wholly erroneous submission of the Scottish Court of Session. [All these cases are linked in the references below].
WHY ?
Because the eleven members of the Supreme Court who gave their unanimous decision that the Prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful” are steeped in the mindset of the continental, European Union philosophy of law.
In the European Union system, the European Court of Justice [so called] is indeed supreme. That court exists to impose and ensure conformity with the fundamental principle of European integration according to the EU project.
It starts with an ideological position and determines everything accordingly; that ideology is expressed via the mechanism of the Treaty for European Union.
This is in stark contrast to the principle and practice of the English tradition. That system references common law, convention and precedent. It references what has been, not what should be, or might be or ought to be.
It is based on tradition and proven worth, not on abstract ideals. It provided the framework for Britain’s historic constitutional and commercial success. It provides the true basis for liberty and the security of property.
Because it starts with the actual, not the ideological. It is essentially Right wing, not Left wing.
In taking their Eurocentric approach, the members of the sEUpreme court attacked a key fundamental of our constitution, wilfully and negligently. They were entirely negligent as to the phenomenal benefits which have flowed from our foundational constitutional document, the 1689 Bill of Rights.
This Bill was passed a full century before the French, continental, enlightenment formula of La Declaration des Droits de l’homme et du citoyen.
We arrived at Habeas Corpus long before the French and their bloody, ideologically based revolution. We got there because of our centuries old common law system and the Magna Carta of 1215.
No ideology on earth can come close to challenging the proven worth of the English tradition and the English pragmatic approach. NONE.
The challenge once the UK is formally out of the EU is to eradicate this ideologically based continental thinking and fully establish the rightful supremacy of our English tradition – a tradition which has benefited the English speaking world beyond measure, and which the young people of Hong Kong would manifestly prefer to the Ideological and Imperial culture and system of China.
We now need an Act to eradicate this alien decision of the sEUpreme court whose members should now resign.
Ray Catlin
Reference links:
the English Divisional court decision is at
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/press-statement-gina-miller-v-the-prime-minister-others/
the assessment by Professor John Finnis QC is at
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-unconstitutionality-of-the-Supreme-Courts-prorogation-judgment.pdf
the assessment by Professor Richard Ekins which also deals with contrary opinion is at
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Parliamentary-Sovereignty-and-the-Politics-of-Prorogation3.pdf
the flawed and ideological decision of the 11 EU centric members of the UK Supreme Court is at
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
end
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Conservatism Institute 