Rookwood, Going Postal
Humbug, Phil ParkerLicence CC BY 2.0

Definition:  Dishonest language or behaviour that is intended to trick people

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to nullify the prorogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson    is deeply disturbing in many respects. The level of sheer venom directed at Johnson, or anything right of left, I am in no doubt whatsoever, has played a clear part in this decision. If he had decided to prorogue in an act of political self-immolation worshipping the twin sacrifices of Jo Cox and Greta Thunberg, his motives would still have been called into question. After all, the former Bullingdon boy can do no right, and being the totem of everything the “Left” despises, it is fitting that he is found guilty of lawlessness before, during and after every bowel movement, word uttered or indeed thought formed inside his head. No greater example of misplaced hope has been shown in any judgement in my living memory, where Mens Rea rides the twin horses of inadmissibility and legal conviction, and despite their increasingly divergent paths, the court somehow expects the torn asunder corpse to miraculously reassemble and resurrect itself post judgement.

I make no apologies for bringing the gory concept of hanging, drawing, quartering and treason into this piece. The Supreme Court, while being very careful to remain “impartial”, has effectively opened the doors wide for Johnson to be accused of treason, if not high treason, insofar as he potentially mislead the Queen. After all, such actions could be construed as “adhering to the Queen’s Enemies in her Realm”. While such a suggestion seems preposterous, it is no more preposterous than suggesting that Johnson didn’t know exactly what he was up to by proroguing Parliament. Anyone with a sliver of understanding will appreciate that he was attempting to buy time before the crucial 31st October deadline, where the opposition refused to capitulate to Parliamentary and historic convention and either allow for an election or form an alternative government, if it so wished. The Supreme Court, by conveniently ignoring this “fact”, has now swaddled itself in the rotting cloak of political power, and dismissing the thornier question of the democratic rights of the citizen, has achieved a spectacular own goal. Not only has it chosen to undermine the 2016 referendum result, but in the process has highlighted the confusion and chaos as to who is actually governing this country at the moment. Sir John Major, amongst others, must be proud, for they have achieved not only a spectacular PR coup, but in the process destroyed any reputation the UK judiciary has for impartiality, never mind fracturing what is left of the Conservative party, irreparably. This precedent suggests that Mens Rea currently holds no weight in terms of UK legal judgement, unless of course the accused is guilty, in which case the court can decide your intentions A priori. It also begs the question, who actually is really in charge?

While this whole incident appears to many as Kabuki theatre, what happens next is of extreme importance. To use the vernacular of Churchill, I posit that consequentially sweet bugger all will be the realistic result, other than giving serious succour to the Remain camp. We are back at stalemate, with the notable exception of some rumours going around about a government of unity being formed with the speaker, John Bercow, being appointed as PM. That, taken in tandem with control of our armed forces allegedly being handed over to the EU institutions on the 1st of November irrespective of any Brexit outcome, it is rapidly becoming clear we are in very dangerous, uncharted waters. Yet few of our MP’s or indeed Lords, seem very bothered by the constitutional and societal implications should either of these Remain wet dreams come true. Business as usual then.

Hence why I can have a modicum of understanding for the 11 Supreme Court justices. Placed in an impossible position, between the weight of international and EU law with a legal system that is based on Napoleonic values versus our constitution, they chose to go down the populist route, insofar as the majority in Parliament decreed. While there are questions being asked by certain very brave individuals as to their financial and political impartiality, the question remains as to how they can resolve taking an oath to the Queen, yet at the same time, reversing a decision that Her Majesty has taken on advice of her Privy Council thereby undermining the Crown? Again, amongst the smoke and fog of political war, this has been conveniently forgotten about. We are reaching a point where the “Annus horribilis” of yesteryear may be just a taste of what is coming down the turnpike for the inhabitants of Buckingham Palace. First destroy Parliament, and then amidst a potentially very nasty set of allegations concerning your son, the institution of Royalty suddenly looks as if it under attack from multiple directions. If you remove authority and character what is left? Not good PR optics.

Coincidence? I think not. There is a clear determination to break up this country, not just on the basis of culture and religion, but over the long established values that have kept the peace, off and on, for hundreds of years. Destruction of the Union, and the politics of the globalist are taking precedent over laws that held this nation together for centuries. Anyone aware of the concept of sanctuary cities in the USA and the corresponding financial and social chaos such developments bring? Well, Wales is next on the cards, having closed their “Consultation” in June – “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and asylum seeker plan”. Funded by the UN this of course, is being promoted as not ignoring federal laws like the US model, but no doubt once this UK precedent is established a lot of legal warfare will undoubtedly follow. Camels’ nose inside the tent and all that. Naturally, no-one bothered to ask the Welsh electorate what they thought of such matters as part of a genuine election campaign, the usual twisted pathology of “Consult then ignore” no doubt paving the way. I wish the project the best of luck, if I remember correctly the Welsh were not particularly enthusiastic about English holiday homes a while back.

And here we have the disintegration and division of the UK in a nutshell. An international body, with considerable legal powers, 22% of its funding coming from the US, 4.4% from the UK, advising and funding diversity in one of the most impoverished parts of the UK.   According to the Welsh government, 23% of the population of Wales lives in poverty. Even if you strip the lily of any guilding that comes with a left leaning government, that is an atrocious statistic. And the solution is a supranational body that in the words of a Jamaican colleague of mine “Only leaves chaos and dead bodies in it’s wake.” Give me a break.

Some commentator on the BBC website hit the nail on the head when Theresa May took the position of depriving the UN of 30% of its UK contributions until it became more transparent and got its house in order. They suggested that the next target of the Brexit brigade would be the UN. Too damn right. Until the Hague, the UN or whatever international body decides to prosecute Tony Blair for war crimes, my judgement on these political paragons of virtue will be one word. Humbug. As far as Boris Johnson is concerned, when faced with such duplicitous adversaries, keeping your cards close to your chest is an asset not a thought crime.

© Rookwood 2019

The Goodnight Vienna Audio file