Dark rumblings in the British Isles portend the betrayal of the largest democratic exercise in the nation’s long history. Storm clouds gather in the form of elitist politicians seeking to tie the United Kingdom – once a proud, independent nation – to the increasingly fragmented European Union project. As the official deadline for leaving this European superstate approaches, it seems that elected members of Parliament are determined to override the will of the British people in a capitulation that will sound the death knell of their freedom.
Will the U.K. forever be trapped in a political union with no hope of escape? Will the British Deplorables take to the streets to demand democracy be served? And is there any doubt remaining in the minds of the electorate that the government has its own agenda that must be served out as thin gruel in this ongoing saga?
Each week, we’ll be examining the machinations and plots that infect British politics.
On the 29 of March, Britain is set to leave the European Union; this is what was voted for, and it is what is written in the treaties and agreements that the British government abides by. But what happens if parliament rejects Prime Minister Theresa May’s continued cooperation deal brokered with E.U. negotiators?
If parliament refuses to back the deal, then by law, Britain should still leave at 11 p.m. on the 29. Yet there is a growing certainty that the government will not accept a complete withdrawal from what is supposedly little more than a customs union. The talk in most major papers involves either an extension to the negotiation period or presenting the public with a do-over referendum – neither of which is wanted by the vast majority of voting Brits.
Would the establishment dare to betray the largest democratic vote in the nation’s history? Not with capable organizers still on the loose they wouldn’t. Which is why, just one week before the leaving date, citizen journalist and activist Tommy Robinson will appear for a contempt of court charge from which he has already been released.
According to Geoffrey Cox, the British Attorney General, charging Tommy again is “in the public interest.” He went on to state that “After carefully considering the details of this case, I have concluded there are strong grounds to bring fresh contempt of court proceedings against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).” This is after Robinson was already imprisoned for three months before being released upon appeal. But perhaps most chillingly, Cox made it very clear that:
“As proceedings are now underway, it would not be appropriate to comment further, and I remind everyone that it is an offence to comment on live court cases.”
To many, this appears a thinly veiled threat to discourage media attention and to shut down activists discussing it on social media. As a prominent pro-Brexit activist, any betrayal by the government would likely face marches and protests. But with no “street organizers,” will the protests be effectively crippled?
Goodbye Trial by Jury
The very foundation of the judicial system in the United Kingdom is that of a trial by jury; it is the bedrock of the people’s trust in the law and the power of the state. Yet the debate is presently taking place in the highest levels of government as to whether the verdict should be delivered by judges alone in rape trials, with no access to a jury.
This fresh madness comes in light of figures suggesting that the actual amount of rape cases that result in a successful prosecution are “too low.” Think for a moment what this means. There are twelve individuals selected from the electoral register at random, who have heard all of the evidence presented, and decided that the man (for this is who the vast majority of accused are) did not commit the crime. Apparently, this is no longer good enough.
Politicos and journalists of the left-leaning variety have been making the case that, with rape trials, the juror’s minds have been poisoned by “myths.” Julie Bindel writing for The Guardian states that:
“Women and girls are routinely blamed for being raped, which means the perpetrator, even when it is abundantly clear that he is guilty, is too often absolved.”
But who is to say when it is “abundantly clear that he is guilty”? Bindel is setting herself up as the sole jury member and making a case for the destruction of British law under the belief that she alone knows better than anyone else. Not only is this a flagrant display of hubris, but it is also the crest of a very slippery slope.
Not enough convictions! Who decides this? Who decides that the people who have been set free by a jury of their peers are getting away with a serious crime? This is the person/government acting as sole judge, jury, and executioner. And what happens next?
If juries keep failing to deliver the verdict the politically motivated court system desires in other areas of law, it stands to reason that Britain will opt out of the jury system for other crimes. If this travesty passes, it spells the very end of the public’s trust in the equality and fairness of the law.
Threat of Danger
When a government effectively “goes rogue” by changing the basis of law, it does not bode well for the future. When they do so for partisan reasons, it is even worse.
As the Brexit deadline approaches, Project Fear reaches fever pitch, and the threats begin to mount. It seems no coincidence that in the same week Brexit leaders are threatened with imprisonment and the removal of jury trials comes under discussion, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson states that to solve the rising knife crime problem in England, it is possible that the military will be used.
It is clearer than ever that the government seeks to betray the Brexit vote and predicts an immediate backlash. The ingredients of tyranny are being added to the pot as the fire is stoked – and once again, the British public will be served little but thin gruel.