ON the steps of the Supreme Court following its judgment on Boris Johnson’s prorogation, Gina Miller, millionaire businesswoman and Remain campaigner, declared: ‘The government is not above the law.’ She triumphantly hailed the court’s ruling as a ‘win for parliamentary sovereignty’. We are a nation, she stated, governed by the rule of law. As is the Prime Minister. Crucially, she continued: ‘We don’t have a direct democracy.’
Many voters struggle to understand the yawning gap between the responsibilities of MPs in a genuine direct democracy (as we have here in Switzerland) compared with the UK format of a representative democracy, where it appears that a large proportion of parliamentary members have, since the EU referendum, and in blatant contradiction of their party manifestos, decided that they are entitled to push their personal views rather than those of the majority of the constituents they claim to represent.
The next day Ms Miller said: ‘MPs will today return and carry out the work of scrutinising and roles we elect them to do.’ Such as honouring their votes to trigger Article 50, and enable the UK to leave the EU by 29 March? Oh no, sorry. By 31 October? Probably not that either, given the whole-hearted determination of so many in Parliament to stymie the referendum result. Rod Liddle has written on the fact that the Deep State has no intention of ever allowing Brexit to happen.
We shouldn’t forget that Gina Miller has previously said that the result of the EU referendum made her ‘physically sick’. And there have even been suggestions that 52 per cent is not really a winning vote. Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, https://order-order.com/2019/09/25/former-supreme-court-judge-says-52-cant-brexit/ said that 52 per cent of the electorate simply cannot have 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. When is a majority not enough? What about the one vote that won it for the Letwin-Cooper EU (Withdrawal) (No 5) Bill – the vote of the now disgraced Fiona Onasanya? They were all quite happy with that. One rogue vote = OK. But the winning votes of the 17.4million don’t seem to count.
Even Lady Hale, the leading Supreme Court judge who delivered the prorogation verdict, is on record as having anti-Brexit sentiments. She said in a speech in 2016 that ‘the referendum was not legally binding on Parliament’.
Gina Miller and her globalist chums and financiers are very enthused about the EU. But what she has essentially declaimed on the steps of the Supreme Court is this: ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above thee,’ as said by Thomas Fuller in 1608, and quoted by Lord Justice Denning in 1977. Unless, of course, you are one of the 32,000 individuals employed by the EU, including Commissioners, who are all blessed with legal immunity, as TCW has highlighted in a previous article. The European Union website tells us this in great, and often impenetrable, detail.
Section 1.1.2 ‘Immunity from persecution, arrest and detention’ sets out the basic intentions. ‘The objective of Article 9 of the Protocol is to safeguard the Member, by ensuring that pressure, in the form of threats of arrest or legal proceedings, is not brought to bear on them during the sessions of Parliament’. There are limitations, however. ‘Personal immunity only protects members as long as they are in office. Its aim is to ensure that the exercise of their mandate is not hindered by politically motivated accusations or convictions’. A very good reason for ensuring that they stay in office.
There are many instances of the EU meddling in the legal affairs of its member states. For example the case of Andreas Georgiou, the former head of the Greek statistics authority. Greek judges intended to prosecute Mr Georgiou for ‘allegedly inflating the government’s budget data between 2010 and 2015, and thus overstretching the need for additional austerity measures’. EU officials actively intervened to prevent this. As Nikolas Leotopoulos explains on Investigate Europe, they were ‘preventing Greek judges from doing their jobs, prosecuting corruption cases and financial crime’. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/how-brussels-is-obstructing-the-prosecution-of-corruption-cases-in-greece/
When the case was re-opened, it provoked an angry reaction from Brussels. ‘Jeroen Dijsselbloem said that the prosecution of Mr Georgiou was a big mistake. The Head of Eurostat Marianne Thyssen said that Georgiou had no case to answer.’ Brussels’s threat? Behave or we won’t pay your next bail-out instalment. You don’t even have to be on Georgiou’s side to see that this is a travesty of legal process. Even if the charges had been unfounded, would that have legitimised a politician like Dijsselbloem intervening in the Greek justice system? What kind of independent judiciary, asks Leotopoulos, would there be if we allowed judges to do their job only when we agree with them?
The outcome was that Athens capitulated. In July a last-minute amendment was added to a Bill about cybercrime to secure full immunity for the EU experts. Article 192 of law 4389-2016, reads: ‘The experts, the members of the boards of experts, or the members of other advisory bodies of the Company and its direct subsidiaries bear no liability or criminal responsibility for the advice they procure.’ So everybody gets a free pass, no checks or balances. No judge can investigate them, no court can try them. As one demoralised judge asked Investigate Europe: ‘What’s the point of having an anti-corruption prosecutor if by law they are forbidden to prosecute corruption?’
Now we come to Mme Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, one of the very top jobs in the EU. (Please note, Mme Lagarde is a lawyer by qualification and training, not a banker.) Prior to this appointment, she was top dog at the IMF, following the problematic demise of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Mme Lagarde had previously been found guilty of negligence in approving a massive taxpayer-funded payout to the controversial French businessman Bernard Tapie.
Guilty, but unpunished. She was spared a jail sentence, and even the normal imposition of a criminal record. Her lawyer Patrick Maisonneuve stated: ‘We would have preferred an acquittal.’ The affair stubbornly refuses to go away. Detectives have spent years trying to establish if the ‘award’ was given to Tapie under President Sarkozy’s orders in return for the businessman’s support in his successful 2007 presidential campaign.
What can we deduce from all this? The EU is not primarily motivated by the Rule of Law, which Gina Miller seems so passionately to uphold. Its labyrinthine bureaucracy ensures that, legally or not, the Commission will get its way. Rod Liddle has nailed it: ‘they’ will use every machination possible to ensure that Brexit never happens. So, Ms Miller, how does your respect for the law stand up, when you can see how the EU treats it? The sanctity of the Rule of Law – you’re just having a laugh.