Lord Pannick’s “seven reasons” don’t add up, it is obviously an attempt to frustrate the people’s will, here’s why. 

Give  a glance to Lord Pannick’s “seven reasons” why the Government shouldn’t have the royal prerogative to withdraw the UK from the EU, this is how Lord Pannick puts it:

The referendum act doesn’t give ministers prerogative to trigger Article 50 – it doesn’t mention it at all. –

Paola’s comment: This is pure bullshit, really, the Referendum act doesn’t have to name Article 50 if it mentions the possibility to “Leave the European Union” triggering article 50 is a technicality, the EU must be left ’cause Leave won and that’s it. The Referendum question must be brief and you have to be able to answer YES-NO, or LEAVE-REMAIN, to leave the european union it is necessary to trigger Article 50, the fact that the question was “Do you want the UK to remain a member of the European Union or to Leave the European Union – tick the box REMAIN or LEAVE” is clearer than the remainers try to make people believe, I don’t see why there should be written on Referendum Act “Do you want Theresa May to trigger Article 50” this means they the remainers are desperate, the technicalities of LEAVE imply necessarily the triggering of Article 50 ’cause there’s no other way to Leave. Thanks.

Ministerial prerogative is used to enter into treaties (such as EU membership) but can’t be used to change constitution.

Paola’s comment: and this is the point, the unacceptable point: the globalists want the Ministers to have the right to enter inter-national institutions without the Parliament in the middle, but then argue that the same government or Ministers who could enter, cannot withdraw, and why does he say “enter international Treaties” but then instead of writing “exiting or withdrawing from international Treaties” suddenly changes the words and says “change constitution”? which constitution? The Lisbon Treaty btw? Because the Britons didn’t know that the f****g Lisbon Treaty was meant as a constitution you know? and basically why this fuss? The power to enter and the power of withdrawing are the same power used in different ways, it’s like saying you can open a drawer but you cannot close it back. Who told them? The Royal Prerogative is not about “entering the international Treaties” and it isn’t about “exiting the international Treaties” it is “about the international Treaties” the claim that it must be used only to enter – of course they are globalists and they want to use it to sign the TTIP – but not to exit is offensive for people’s honesty and intelligence. It would have much sense at this point to claim that the royal prerogative cannot be used for entering international Treaties just as well and also in that case the Parliament must give permission, but the globalists don’t want to do it: basically this condition is unacceptable.

The Government must demonstrate Parliament expressly handed over powers to ministers to supercede legislation. It hasn’t over Brexit.

Paola’s comment: Parliament handed over the people the power to decide whether to leave the EU and the people decided to Leave, Parliament shouldn’t do any handing over powers to supercede any legislation because the Royal Prerogative gave powers “about” international Treaties to the Government already, it’s they that want to use the Royal Prerogative in one direction only, it’s like saying a Parliament can do legislation but cannot repeal it. Why? Because they want the accession to overnational institutions – moreover masking them as inter-national – to be irreversible “the ratchet” Boris Johnson fought against during the Brexit Campaign and won. This irreversibility is precisely what the globalists want to destroy the nation states and build the NWO and we don’t want.

Parliament did not intend the 1972 Act to create ministerial prerogative power to sweep away EU membership.

Ministers can’t use prerogative (executive power) to frustrate legislation.

None of the European Union-related acts created over 40 odd years give ministers power to trigger Article 50.

Only an Act of Parliament can take away the rights linked to the EU that have been created since 1972 membership.

The last three points are hanging on the wrong premise that the Royal Prerogative could be used in one direction only, but the way the characteristics of the Royal Prerogative’s are written do not specify “it can be used only to enter” or “only to exit” the International Treaties, they know perfectly “about” means “about” the International Treaties, why do they assume about means “about entering”? This is about language and it is about how Lord Pannick talks like a pawn of the EU: he is talking on behalf of the EU against Britain and he’s a very bad advocate. The fact that Article 50 wasn’t mentioned in the Referendum Act is a ridiculous remark, and the assumption that the royal prerogative can be used only to enter and not to detach one’s country from an international group is not worded anywhere, it is in fact an assumption of his, and not the most logic one, being the most logic one that, if it is not specified in what way, it can be used in both.

Theresa May faces a new challenge to her bid to start the process to take Britain out of the European Union after it emerged that opponents plan to launch a fresh legal action on Monday.

Source: Theresa May faces new Brexit legal challenge

Categories: Brexit


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Freeword and Friends Paris

La vraie France triomphera.

%d bloggers like this: