• Christopher Wylie: The beginning of the end? For Brexit?

      1 comment

    Above, Christopher Wylie before the Commons select committee.

    One of the hallmarks of a democratic state is the separation of powers. Thus we have the example of the constitution of the USA where you have the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. It is to be remembered that the Founding Fathers of the USA looked the the example of Great Britain (NB: The UK did not exist until the start of the 19th Century). In doing so they sought to improve upon the constitutional settlement we had – and still have in the UK. It is to be noted that the position of the Home Secretary making judicial decisions (on prisoner releases), the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords acting as a supreme court went against the principal of separation of powers and as such the Europeans dictated that the UK amend it’s constitution. The result is the continental sounding “Ministry of Justice” and a US sounding “Supreme Court”.

    Whilst the British Gazette – along we think with many of our readers – deeply regret these constitutional amendments, it is with great reluctance that we suggest that they are probably to the best due to the FACT that the calibre of our politicians has not always been up to the mark for this.

    It is undoubtedly the case that the separation of the judicial governance from the political governance is essential. We see what happens in states where this is not the case either de jure (Saudi Arabia) and de facto (Russia).

    The case of Russia is instructive as the Russian Federation under the leadership of President Putin is a glaring example of political influence over the judiciary and the police. However, this does not justify any British Gazette Reader taking the high moral ground for regrettably we have past examples in our own country and those in Europe that demonstrate that politics and justice get intertwined. Examples in this country have been Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis.

    It is not just in the area of rejected appeals of clemency that politics and justice has become intertwined. Most prominently insofar as Brexit is concerned is the long maintained belief held by many British Gazette readers – including your Editor – that the UK’s membership of the EU is unconstitutional as it is in breach of the 1688 Declaration of Rights and the ratifying 1689 Bill of Rights, the Privy Council Oath and the Coronation Oath Act of 1953 in which Her Majesty swore to govern us according to OUR laws and customs and NOT those of a foreign power!

    These opinions however count for nought as political reality prevails over constitutional theory.

    In his blogpost today, Doctor Richard North (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86813) comments amongst other things, the failure by the defence counsel of the Nazi defendants at the Nuremberg trials to introduce the legal principal of “tu quoque” (you too).

    The allied judges rejected this out of hand. Had this not been the case the trials would have run into the ground for it was clear that the allies (which included the USSR) had sinned. What was clear was that the USSR was sinned against more than sinned and the UK was many many times more sinned against than sinned.

    Of Christopher Wylie’s claims, Doctor North opines that the legal precedent that was established at Nuremberg will be maintained in the case of Brexit. This overlooks one FACT: that the allies were acting in their own interests. As President Tusk has repeatedly stated, the EU will act in it’s own interests. We can confidently expect the Remainers – of which there are many in the UK – to do likewise!

    It is the opinion of the British gazette that it would be VERY unwise for any EuroRealist to underestimate the influence of Mr Wylie’s testimony. Which is why we feature in the customary image space at the top of the article.
    Here is why Mr Wylie’s testimony is SO important:
    1. It is succinct: Mr Wylie makes the points he makes in under three minutes.

    2. The Canadian accented (thus “classless” in UK terms) Mr Wylie describes himself as “Gay” and has part dyed his hair pink. As such he appeals to a politically correct, “trendy” demographic and because of his accent across the UK social spectrum. Unlike a certain Jacob Rees-Mogg for instance!

    3. The point he makes and his comparison with doping in the Olympics will strike home with the key UK demographic: those vast numbers (76%) of young people aged between 18 and 24 in 2016 who did not bother to vote. What makes these youngsters SO annoyed is that they were told – repeatedly – by Remain campaigners that their grandparents would be turning out to vote – despite their rheumatism and arthritis!

    It is all very well for Doctor North to draw upon the great well of experience and fact and suggest that the doctrine of “tu quoque” is not a defence in law. He is undoubtedly right. But how often have politicians when presented with the right advice, ignored said advice and made the wrong decision?

    The FACT of the matter is that this country’s Europhile political elite find themselves in a hole which was dug for them by that ever so public spirited chap, Mr Nigel Farage. Assisted from time to time by a certain Boris Johnson. This is a hole they do not want to be in!

    IF the Electoral Commission press charges against the former directors of Vote Leave and these persons are convicted, we can expect some Remainers to demand a second referendum.

    We can confidently expect that Madame Mayhem and Comrade Corbyn to reject such calls.

    We can also expect that the Remianers may try a legal challenge to insist that a second referendum is held. If they do we can confidently expect that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will REJECT such calls.

    You may Dear Reader assume that with their appeal turned down the Remainers will have fired off all their ammunition.

    NOT SO!!!!!!

    There is one further court of appeal: The European Court of Human Rights.

    Now at this point, Readers experienced directly or indirectly with lawyers and litigation will point out that the ONE thing that these Remainers will NOT have is: TIME.

    This is undoubtedly TRUE! We have as of now, one year and one day to go until Brexit Day.

    For the Remainers to be successful in having the ECHR insist the UK government hold a second Brexit referendum the following HAS to happen before Friday 29th March 2019!

    1. The Electoral Commission to charge former directors or other members of Vote Leave with electoral offences and for these persons to be duly convicted.

    2. That the Remainers litigation in the UK courts (High Court/Appeal Court/Supreme Court) must run it’s course.

    3. That the ECHR (that is famously slow to act) must receive, examine, decide to pursue and then reach judgement in sufficient time to allow the UK government to enact legislation to bring about a second referendum and for the campaign to take place.

    For the Remainers to succeed then either of two things must happen or both these things must happen.

    They are:

    1. That all the authorities must “get their skates on!”

    2. The EU 27 make an offer of an Article 50 extension to Madame Mayhem and she accepts it.
    Remember: Most young people will agree with Christopher Wylie.

    • If his version is true; which I doubt. He’s a typical grievance monger – had a gay love affair which, as most do, went sour. This is his bitching ‘revenge’.

      The fact that Mr Cameron spent £20 million of taxpayers’ money on remain campaigning puts the lie to the whole charade.

    Write a comment