The case brought by the Chairman of the English Democrats, Robin Tilbrook, claiming that the UK left the EU in law on the 29th of March, has been thrown out by a judge before being properly heard.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW:
Not only has the Judge concerned, the Right Honourable Lord Justice Hickinbottom, rejected Tilbrook's appeal to have the case heard, he also labelled the case 'Totally Without Merit', which is the way that cases of this sort are stopped in their tracks from going anywhere.
In his blog Robin Tilbrook says:
"Given that this is a case that very many lawyers, both distinguished and retired members of the judiciary, QCs, barristers and solicitors think has strong legal credibility, this decision can only be based upon the Judge's politics."
And Tilbrook goes on to write that the judicial appointment system is now politically biased to make sure that only those with the 'correct' views are able to sit as judges.
He also says that Judge Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Law Institute (ELI), an organisation that has at its core the objective:
"To evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States."
And Tilbrook goes on to say that:
"…this decision is not about the genuine merits of the case, it is about preventing this case from being heard, which the device of 'Totally without Merit' achieves…"
And he also says he is considering taking the case to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) court in Strasbourg.
Now, I have to stress that the ECHR is not a European Union court, although to be a part of the EU a member state has to sign up to the ECHR.
But, and here's a strange situation, although EU member states are required to sign up to the ECHR, the EU itself has not – even though Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to respect those fundamental ECHR rights.
And that's because the European Court of Justice ruled that formally signing up to the ECHR would give an external body the power to review the application of EU law, so what they'll do is just let the ECHR sort of guide and inform their decisions – let that sink in for a moment.
But back to the Tilbrook case, thankfully the UK is a signatory to the ECHR.
The trouble is that going to the ECHR with this case is directly questioning the integrity and true independence of the UK judicial system.
This is something the UK establishment will defend against to the hilt.
I mean having a ruling from an international court that basically says that the UK is now run as an EU controlled banana state won't go down too well will it?
Then there's the politics of it all. Boris and the Tories want to be seen as the party that got Brexit done, or the party that was seen to get it done – so having a rival political party, the English Democrats, achieve it through a court case would never do would it?
So if and when this case reaches the ECHR, I would surmise that a lot of money, effort and kitchen sinks will be thrown at it so as to protect the UK establishment.
But the big message here for us all, is that we need to take a long hard look at the whole judicial system in the UK.
Maybe it's time to let democracy shine a strong light into the dusty inner workings of our courts – why not elect your local judge?!
Then we'd find out what sort of punishments the ordinary folk of the UK want meted out to the wrongdoers, wouldn't we?
And there'd also be no appearance of shady back-room appointments either, would there?