Brexit Crisis

20 Replies to “Brexit Crisis”

1. The Lords will be playing a very dangerous game if they much with January 31st. Brexit, delays etc.

   And I hope Boris kicks the newfangled, totally useless and un-British “Spreme Court” of lefty hangovers in the teeth, gonads and arse.

   1. I agree.

      And they seem to be fixated with small details – something it’s probably not worth risking a further constitutional shake-up of the House of Lords over.

2. Maybe the Prince Harry & Megan issue and this issue will start the end of the Monarchy and include the end of the House of Lords..

3. Apparently the Lords can delay legislation up to a year – but – but – but “A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government’s election manifesto. ” (Wikipedia)

   Boris should just take the bill to the Queen and have her sign it. If she refuse go back to the Commons and pass bills to fire her and all the Lords. Then ask Chuckie if he wants to sign it. Then ask William. Then ask Harry and let him through his grannie out in the snow.

   1. I guess what Johnson would do is ask the Queen to appoint sufficient Lords to win a vote. What a waste of money.

      1. Scar is absolutely right. Simply diluting the Lords membership is the politically simplest way to deal with this. It’s been done before.

   2. The British are talking about moving the House of Lords to a city in Northern England.

      If the Lords continue to obstruct Brexit, maybe the Shetland Islands would be a better choice? Or the Falklands?

      1. Perhaps Rockall. It’s for the birds.

4. FUBAR

5. Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?
   The Lords just stepped in it,the British peoples patience with their parasitic overlords is running very low.
   What a stupid pill to die on.

6. He blew his mind out in a car
   They had seen his face before
   Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords

   In brief…another day in the life of that silly island. Pip pip old chap, eh, wot!?

7. Didn’t old John A Macdonald himself say that we need a senate in Canada to protect the minority rich from the majority poor in the democracy that was Canada?

8. It must be remembered that the current House of Lords is not the old hereditary aristocratic crowd. This batch is essentially “life” peers and peeresses, appointed by the Prime Minister and given their rank because of service to the party. Given what the elites of both parties (the Lib Dems are irrelevant) have long thought about Brexit and any form of nationalism in general, it is not a surprise that the Lords are proving obstructionist.

   1. Correct. And more to the point, overwhelmingly leftist scum appointed by Blair. This was his idea to appoint enough of his cronies to dominate the HoL for years until they die off.

      1. I had wondered about that.

9. Doesn’t Canada have a similar useless edifice called a Senate?

   Thank God when we threw out the British, we threw out all their ideas and started our Federal Government over from scratch. We even realized that FedGov v.1.0, the first Articles of Confederation were a failure, and developed the US Constitution for our new Republic.

   When you form the Republic of Western Canada, may I suggest you steal it lock, stock, and Bill of Rights too.

   1. rd, yes.

   2. No American in their right mind would call the Senate “useless”, or “impotent” for that matter.

      The American Senate has Power.

      Its structure is meant to prevent States like California, New York and Texas from overwhelming the smaller States. Its powers are immense, though inferior to the House in domestic affairs: from completing the impeachment (the House starts it) to ratification of all matters in domestic affairs, to approving appointments in the Executive and Judicial branches.

      And the US Senate is elected – not appointed by a Monarch and Peerage.

      The British Parliament is simply an autocracy, providing Royalty and Aristocracy with a veneer of democratic legitimacy, much as the Iranian Legislature in Iran provide the Muslim clerics and Ayatollah. The British legislature has NEVER been capable of enacting laws for its people on a representative, let alone “democratic” legitimacy. And this philosophical defect is what split the British population in two almost 400 years ago, arguably beginning in Plymouth.

      This is principally why Plymouth General Court is the first true democratic legislature (and judiciary and quasi-executive) of its kind – the forebear of the current US Congress – and not the House of Burgesses set up by the Virginia Company, let alone the British parliament and Iranian Legislature.

      Words have meaning. And to declare something as “democratic”, republican” or “representative” ultimately means that such establishments have Power, which is ultimately derived from the People.

      On this standard of Truth, the House of Burgesses along with today’s British Parliament and Iranian Legislature fail to pass muster. The House of Burgesses’ elected body was eviscerated and then banned by King George beginning in the 1760s (as many predicted the British Monarch would always do despite constant British pretensions to the contrary) which was one of the causes of the American Revolution, leading to the establishment of the democratic House of Delegates in its place. Everyone was aware – kabuki theater be damned – that the British Monarch had ultimate authority and could dispense with the cosmetics of “representative government” anytime he/she wanted.

      And to this day, both the British and Iranian legislatures live in fear that this farce will embarrass their heritage and themselves – of this ultimate canning by their Royal authorities who have ultimate power over their People and how they are governed. It has become a comical dog-and-pony show to Americans, knowing that the British People are always busy pretending that their Queen doesn’t hold that Sword of Damocles over the meaningless proceedings in their “elected Legislature”.

      Because everybody in Britain is well aware that she holds that Sword – just as the Queen’s forbear did in America so long ago. To this day, even the best of the British Marines will tell you that they swear allegiance to the Queen – NOT to the democratic processes that elect their representatives or the People of Britain – and at best squirm, and at worst affirm enthusiastically that they will arrest elected representatives (including the Prime Minister) on the ultimate authority and order of the Soverieng of Britain – the Queen.

      How’s that for British representative government?

      But in the United States, the elected bodies hold the Sword of Damocles. Everybody in America is well aware of the peril Trump might be in if the Senate flips on him as the House of Representatives already has.

      If Congress decides to do so, they will do so (and these are ALL elected representatives – House, Senate, and President). By contrast, the Supreme Court – the least representative, most aristocratic institution in the US – has absolutely no Power on these impeachment proceedings beyond a rubber stamp of either affirming or objecting to the other two elected bodies.

      And ask any US Marine or Army Special Forces operator whether he’d arrest Congress based on the pronouncements of an unelected Supreme Court ruling. Heck, they’d squirm about arresting ANY elected representative even if it’s on the President’s order – because the American Oath is to the Constitution – the process by which they are linked to the People’s authority (and therefore, God’s authority) – NOT an un-elected King or Queen.

      (God -> The People -> Congress/Aristocracy -> President/King)

      The Mayflower Compact and the Plymouth General Court had no Royal Charter – no permission or authority from the British Royalty – rightly so for many reasons, but above all they recognized the indelible Truth that changed the course of History…

      The Old-World British system was wrong (God -> King -> Aristocracy -> The Peasants).

      In Plymouth – albeit with great debate and controversy that almost led to rebellion – the Pilgrims enacted a system by themselves, with no input from the King, no interference from the Anglican Church, no aristocratic British charter or permission, and elected their own representatives with Power and Authority – because God gave that authority to them (not to a King or “His Majesty’s” clerics). The Governor of Plymouth himself was demoted or promoted, his powers limited or removed, based on the whims of the General Court and its representatives, elected by the Pilgrims.

      The Pilgrims enacted “self-government”.

      The revelation would infect every governing body in America and expose the flaws of the British system well into 18th century until things came to a head in 1776.

10. Boris must do a counter revolution to reverse the Blair revolution. He need not restore the Lords as they were but he could create an Upper Chamber bases on the regions. The ‘Supreme Court’ is a deeply anti-traditional creation in the EU style of lawyers and judges know what is best for you. It must be eliminated.
    David Starkey
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JlN7wgqBE

    1. Parliament should always be Supreme to a Supreme Court.