It is now three years to the day since the UK electorate took the momentous decision that it was time to leave the European Union, yet we still find ourselves chained to the bloc with no end in sight.


Three years ago on the 23rd June 2016, the UK went to the polls in the biggest exercise in democracy the country has ever seen and voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the European Union.

And from the 24th of June, just about the entire establishment and mainstream media geared up to block all Brexit progress as well as besmirch everyone who had voted to Leave by calling them everything from bigots to ignorant.

The Remainer establishment, aided and abetted by vested interests both domestic and foreign have blocked and obfuscated at every turn and we have even seen UK politicians travelling to Brussels to brief Eurocrats and work with them on defeating the will of their own electorate.

And the very fact that the UK involved itself in the recent EU elections to send MEPs to Brussels and Strasbourg, tells you all you need to know about the success of the Remain campaign.

They had to get us in those elections or we would have been forced out by the EU's own laws.

So they had to use every lawful and unlawful device they could to keep us tied in, until the date of the EU elections, so we would be 'forced' to hold them.

And that is a big hurdle cleared for the Remainers.

Now they will be looking to force a revocation of the Article 50 letter – by any means, constitutional or not, lawful or unlawful.

But thank heavens Theresa May called the 2017 general election as, if she had not she could well have had enough support in the commons to eventually shoe-horn the country into that Withdrawal Agreement surrender treaty of hers.

Also, thanks go to Gina Miller who, by bringing and winning her case, prevented Theresa May from using the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50, which has, inadvertently for her, handed the Leave cause a legal route to force an exit from the EU.

Some people may believe that our establishment is not Remain biased, but I say it is. And the biggest smoking gun, the biggest giveaway of this is the reaction by government, parliament, the press and the judiciary to Robin Tilbrook's submission via judicial review that the first Article 50 extension was unlawful and therefore void, so we must already have left the EU, by default, at 11 pm on the 29th March 2019 – three months ago.

Tilbrook's case is basically the same as the case Gina Miller won. In that if the government had to get an act of parliament to trigger Article 50, then it follows that the government must use an act of parliament to extend Article 50 – this was not done as the Prime Minister, Theresa May used the Royal Prerogative at the last moment to agree the extension with the EU. Tilbrook says that without an act of parliament then she had no power to make that agreement so it is null and void.

And Tilbrook's team are very, very sure of their ground and legal commentators have voiced their agreement.

Now, Gina Miller brought her case in the hope that if she forced the government to use an act of parliament to trigger Article 50, then the houses of commons and lords would not vote it through so stopping Brexit in its tracks.

So, because it was an anti-Brexit move it got wall to wall coverage and Miller was the star of every news and political show from that point on.

And importantly the case was dealt with efficiently. Miller submitted the claim form on the 29th July 2016 and the whole case including appeal to the Supreme Court was done and dusted by the 24th January.

The Tilbrook case was submitted on the 2nd of April and, as far as I know, there has not even been a court date set yet regarding this highly important constitutional case.

Just compare that to the case of Boris Johnson who managed in just a few days to use the judicial review procedure to quash a court decision to allow a private prosecution against him for the £350 million to Brussels every week claim. If I've got this right, the initial decision was made on the 29th of May and it was overturned by the 7th June.

Also, the press has largely ignored the Tilbrook case and even those politicians that call themselves Brexiteers cannot bring themselves to mention it.

Now, some of this seeming disinterest may be down to Robin Tilbrook being the chairman of an opposing Brexit believing political party, the English Democrats. But that cannot explain all of the deafening silence surrounding this case.

We have an independent judiciary in the UK and it is a well known legal maxim that delay defeats equity. And delay in hearing this case could also have the effect of tarnishing the reputation of our legal system and of the judiciary.

Now, within the judicial system there will be someone, maybe a judge or judges, who make what I would call management decisions about, well, case management. I'm not referring to legal judgments, I'm talking about decisions of when and where to hear cases.

And it is those sort of management decisions or the lack of making them in a timely manner, that are themselves open to judicial review one would think.

But who would judge that and in which court?

And it is because of the massive power that the judiciary wields that it must be seen to be swift and fair in all cases, nothing else will do.


No misconduct trial for Boris Johnson after High Court intervenes

Comment Here!