|| Thursday: January 16: 2020 || ά.  New figures, published today, Thursday, January 16, by the Office for National Statistics estimate 224,800 green jobs in the UK in 2018, compared to 235,900 in 2014. Although, there has been a small increase between 2017 and 2018, the TUC says that the fact there were fewer green jobs in 2018 than 2014 is an appalling failure.

And the more recent annual progress is still far too slow. TUC General Secretary Ms Frances O’Grady said, “This is a dreadful record. The climate emergency is a major threat to the living standards of British people. But we are making next to no progress transforming our economy to safeguard our future.

There should be a very good news story to tell. A path has been open to us for a long time now that’s full of opportunities to create good quality green jobs. By taking this path, we can revitalise towns and communities, that lost traditional industries.

No more excuses; the government must sit down with unions and businesses to plan a just transition to a fairer greener economy.”

The trade union movement recognises that there is overwhelming scientific evidence of the need to decarbonise our economy. In 2019, the TUC published ‘A Just Transition to a Greener, Fairer Economy’, which sets out the fundamental requirements for a fair transition to an economy with net-zero emissions.

Read the Report

|| Free Annual Subscription to The Humanion Portable Daily For Students: Workers: Unwaged: Journalism and Media Workers ||

|| Readmore  || :::ω::: ||   reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 170120 || Up ||

|| Tuesday: October 22: 2019 || ά.  Speaking at the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Agreement Bill’s Second Reading, Mr Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party said, ‘’Mr Speaker, we warned on Saturday that, that if the House passed the government’s deal, it would be a disaster for our country. Now as we look through the detail of this Bill, we see just how right we were.

Page after page of what amounts to nothing less than a charter for deregulation and a race to the bottom. A deal and a Bill that fails to protect our rights and our natural world, fails to protect jobs and the economy, fails to protect every region and nation in the United Kingdom. This Bill confirms that Northern Ireland is really in the Customs Union of the EU and goods will be subjected to tariffs.

The Prime Minister said there would be no checks, that was Saturday, but yesterday the Brexit Secretary confirmed to the Lords European Union Committee that, under the government’s proposals, Northern Irish businesses that send goods to Great Britain will have to complete export declaration forms. And today the government estimates that exit declaration costs will be between £15 to £56 per customs declaration.

So the Prime Minister was at best, and I’m being generous here, mistaken on Saturday. And Mr Speaker, the more divergence, the harder that border will become; and the greater danger, the risk that will put, at risk the historic Good Friday Agreement. And Mr Speaker, this deal leaves open the possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal by the end of next year.

No wonder Mr Speaker, that some on the Conservative benches are suddenly so keen to jump on board with this deal. It opens the door to the No Deal exit that this House has voted against on numerous occasions. Plain and simple, this is a Charter for a Brexit that would be good for the hedge fund managers and speculators but bad for the communities that we represent, our industries, and people’s jobs and living standards. In industry after industry, from chemicals processing to car manufacturing are all deeply concerned about the way in which this Bill will operate.

And Mr Speaker, the way in which the Prime Minister is trying to blindside this Parliament to force this deal through must be challenged. This is a Bill of huge significance and complexity. It will decide the future of our country and the future of our economy and the economic model that will follow.

And to then propose a Programme Motion with all 68 clauses considered and voted on within the next 24 hours – starting this evening – is an abuse of Parliament and a blatant attempt to dodge accountability, to dodge scrutiny, to dodge any proper debate. What their officials once said should take four weeks to properly scrutinise, they now want done in a day.

All MPs should ask themselves why? So much for Parliament taking back control. Parliament is being treated as an inconvenience that can be bypassed by this government. And Mr Speaker, there is a crucial element to this. There has been no economic impact assessment whatsoever that has been presented to this House. The Chancellor doesn’t seem to think it relevant that this Bill and their deal needs this kind of scrutiny. Even more so in light of today’s very dire public finance figures.

Again, Mr Speaker, all members of this House, on all sides, should ask themselves why? If this deal is good for our country. Why haven’t they produced a single scrap of evidence to show this is the case? The only economic evidence we can go on is the economic assessment carried out under the last Prime Minister, and that was clear. A bare bones Free Trade Agreement, which is what this Prime Minister is promising, would dramatically hit our country’s GDP, would disproportionately hit our poorest regions and make everybody in this country worse off.

And it would lock in the existing privatisation of our National Health Service, and nothing in this Bill protects our health service or their public services from future trade deals. So I ask again. Will the Chancellor do his job and provide this House, and this country, with a comprehensive economic impact assessment on this deal? Or, at the very least, will he do so before report stage?

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us falls hugely short in all areas. On jobs and manufacturing, this deal will reduce access to the market of our biggest trade partner and leave our manufacturers without a Customs Union. Members across the House will have heard the desperate pleas from businesses in their constituencies all saying they need frictionless supply chains.

So I ask them to do the right thing. Let’s work together to make sure a comprehensive Customs Union is hardwired into our future relationship with the EU. On workers’ rights, by removing any level playing field provisions, the government is asking us to give them a blank cheque on rights at work. Yes. The same people who have spent their political carers rallying against the so-called burdens of employment law, want us to trust them on workers’ rights.

The provisions of the Bill mean the government merely has to inform the House if they propose to diverge from EU standards. And am I correct in understanding that no notification, let alone a vote, would be required if the measure is currently contained in secondary legislation?

These provisions fall way, way short of the Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill put forward by my Honourable Friend for Great Grimsby. And the TUC concluded that “the deal would not require government to maintain existing rights, would not require rights to keep pace with those across the EU, and would leave workers with a significantly reduced ability to enforce the rights they do have” and concludes “it would do nothing to improve workers rights in the UK now or in the future.”

While on the environment they talk about maintaining “world-class” environmental standards, but Mr Speaker, actions speak louder than words. So can I ask the Prime Minister instead of entrenching non-regression Environmental standards into this Bill and their deal, why has he instead taken out level playing field commitments?

I always say, Mr Speaker, on all these issues, you don’t have to take my word for it. Manufacturers and industry are deeply concerned about this deal, green groups are deeply concerned, and I challenge the Prime Minister to name a single trade union in this country that backs his deal. He knows he can’t and they’ve made their views very clear. Mr Speaker, that isn’t all. What may be the most concerning aspect for many in this Bill comes in Clause 30. That clause makes it worryingly clear if no trade deal with the EU is agreed by the very ambitious date of December next year. Ministers can just decide to crash the UK out on WTO terms.

This, Mr Speaker, is not getting Brexit done. It is merely pushing back the very serious threat of No Deal to a later date. Let’s be clear, as things stand this Bill spells out what is a deeply damaging deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. And he knows it. Which is why he is trying to rush it through without proper scrutiny.

So, Mr Speaker, Labour will seek more time to scrutinise. We will seek a very clear commitment to a Customs Union, a strong single market relationship, hardwired commitments on workers’ rights, non-regression of environmental standards, and loopholes closed to avoid the threat of a No Deal Brexit once and for all.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister’s deal should go back to the people and give them, not just the members of this House, the final say. They always say, Mr Speaker, the devil is in the detail. And, having seen the detail, it confirms everything we thought about this rotten deal. A charter for deregulation across the board, paving the way for Trump-style trade deals that will attack jobs, rights and protections, and open up our precious National Health Service and other public services for further privatisation.

That is exactly what the Prime Minister set out in his letter to the EU Commission President when he set out that alignment with EU standards “is not the goal of the current UK government”. There you have it, in his own words. It is a vision for the future of our country that my Party, the Labour Party, cannot sign up to and does not support.

And that is why we will be voting against the second reading tonight and, if that is carried, we would vote against the programmed motion to ensure that this elected House of Commons has the opportunity to properly scrutinise this piece of legislation.

Readmore:::ω.

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 231019 || Up ||  

|| Monday: September 30:2019 || ά. Truly, the United Kingdom has entered uncharted water, for there, in the entire history of the country, has not been such a Prime Minister, like the current one, in Mr Boris Johnson; within a short space of a few weeks of entering 10 Downing Street, he has, successfully, created this situation whereby no one has any trust in him that he would follow what the course of law expects and directs him to do. Mr Johnson has directed the entire Government towards a dangerous, reckless and unprecedented path.  

The UK Governments have never behaved the way the current one is doing. The Parliament does not have an ounce of faith or trust in his government, doing what the law asks them to do because since the day he entered Downing Street he has done nothing but this: that he has made his government into a wriggling eel, that will not give up, seeking to wriggle out of the ‘hold’ of the law. In the end, he does not succeed and he will not succeed but, the irreparable damage he has, already, caused in public trust in Government is beyond precedent and, in itself, is a mortal danger to democratic governance.  

However, he finds himself in a ‘lucky’ position that the Parliament is unable to remove him from office, while he does not, even, command any majority; thus, he remains in office while heading a desperately minority Government, that can not do anything whatsoever because of this. In effect, his government has found itself stuck at the hard ground. Yet, the Parliament can not agree a way out because of the composition of the House. The only Party in opposition, that has support for a clear No Confidence Motion is the Scottish National Party, which, at the same time, does support the consequence of a No Confidence motion succeeding: that a new Government will be formed by the Labour Party.

Except, that support is not enough for the Labour Party Leader Mr Jeremy Corbyn MP to gather a majority. However, it is noteworthy, that the Scottish National Party has accepted the political imperative of the situation and it has responded to it pragmatically. Mr Corbyn needs support from all other parties, including, the Liberal Democratic Party, which appears venomously opposed to supporting Mr Corbyn; although, this Government is being spoken of as a Care Taker Government in the sense that Mr Corbyn will simply request an extension from the European Union from October 31 till January 31, 2020 and, then, will hold a General Election. The Other fragment of a Party, the Change UK, takes similar stance as the Liberal Democrats. It appears that they still think that they have a ‘political duty’ to keep the minority Conservative Party Government in office, despite the fact that it is now working as a danger to the national interest, which, they agree, is for the UK not to leave the European Union without any deal and that the Government should ask for an extension, for which they voted to pass such a law!

Further, despite being kicked out of their Party, the 21 Conservative MPs for voting to Pass the No Deal Exit and Extension Date Law, they are unwillingly to vote against their ‘Party’s Government’ and so do not want to support Mr Jeremy Corbyn forming a Care Taker Government. Other parties have very few MPs and despite their support the numbers do not add up to a majority. This means that unless a No Confidence Motion Passes, that will bring down Johnson Government and open the path for a new Government, nothing changes and the Eel of an Executive still remains in office with the power to keep on wriggling out of the hold of the law within such a tiny space of time of a month remaining to be wasted towards the danger date: end of October.

The Parliament will seek to try and see what else it can do; however, time is running out for there is only a month to go. The Judiciary will be used in seeking to enforce the law of the land and any effort in seeking to do this is highly likely to succeed but the Government will keep on seeking to wriggle out because it is one, that does not seem to abide by the law of the land. Such a statement can not be made about any previous UK Government.

This means that there still remains the risk that this Government is intent on forcing the UK out of the European Union against the law of the land. The absolutely sure and constitutional way to ensure that the Government abides by the law of the land is to remove a minority Government and open the path to have a new Government. The Liberal Democratic Party and the others, including, the now independent or former Conservative MPs say that they want to stop a No Deal exit of the European Union. Yet, they seem united in keeping a danger of a minority Government in office so that it can keep on wriggling towards that very thing, exiting without a deal, which is a reckless and dangerous prospect for the country.

Time is running out for the Parliament to keep on seeking to find a way forward whereby the Parliament takes leadership and directs the Course, that the country must take for the national interest. For the Parliament to not do that and give up with all MPs holding their hands to their chests and wishing and hoping that someone will go to court and make no deal go away! That’s not why a Parliament is there for: it is there to work to protect, safeguard and keep the national interest, which a majority of this Parliament believes and, they have shown that by passing a No Deal Exit Law, for the UK not to exit the European Union without any deal.

This is why the country is now at uncharted waters and the people of this country, particularly, the working and non-working poor and the vulnerable groups are continually being dragged towards that calamitous leaving the European Union without a deal; even, though, there is a law, that has directed the Government that it can not to that but to ask for an extension from the European Union. The country and its people await for the Parliament to do its duty and protect and safeguard the national interest. :::ω.

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 011019 || Up ||

|| Thursday: September 26: 2019 || Because what Mr Boris Johnson did get to show at the House yesterday was exactly that: Boris Johnson Doom: A Distasteful, Nauseating and Dangerous Dog-Whistle Act of Mixing Potent White Supremacy, Stinking Misogyny, Rotten Masochism and Crass Nationalism, Fuelled by Hatred and Violence, Presented to, What Mr Johnson Thinks His Core Voters: That, What Stands to Challenge, Weaken, Muzzle and Show Contempt to the Will of the People as the Parliament, the Expression of the Rule of Law as the Judiciary and Glorify Violence and Hatred Is Nothing But Despotic Monstrosities, That Mr Johnson Has Unleashed at the Parliament yesterday at His Peril. Because the vast, vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom are not part of that xenophobic school, which Mr Johnson and his entourage, clearly, believe to be the case. And this vast, vast majority of the honourable, decent and good people, who believe in the rule of law, were disgusted by this brutish, roguish, bullish, hateful and violent exercise of hatred, contempt and desecration, that made them all sick to their stomach.   

It can quite easily be said that there had never been a Parliamentary session as violent, as brutal and as crass as that, what Mr Boris Johnson has performed: yes, performance, an act; it was an act so far Mr Johnson was concerned. He was not speaking to the Parliament but to his supposed school of voters, whom, he is seeking to reach and ignite and prepare for the forthcoming election. This is Dog-Whistling at its most dangerous, most brutal, most despotic and most explicit. It was fed by a violent contempt towards anything, that stands against a violent force and it gains self-sustaining power to keep on going by hatred, fury and virulence and from the fact that it is being watched. On the other hand, what Mr Johnson did yesterday evening, can be paralleled with the Enoch Powell’s ‘Blood River’ speech; the only difference is Mr Johnson Dog-Whistled at the very last point so that it hardly remained Dog-Whistle while Enoch Powell did not do. He set out his stall clearly because he had elected to cross the threshold and stand and speak from the other side.  

At that point Mr Boris Johnson has created and presented a white supremacist Conservative Party to that school of electorate, who, he thinks, forms the majority in this country. The clear point in his performance of this is in the brutal, cruel and heartless but carefully calculated delivery of this when he mentioned the late but murdered Member of Parliament Jo Cox’s name with such cold contempt, suggesting that her memories would be better served by delivering exiting the European Union, his expression, ‘getting Brexit done’. The purpose of using this expression is this so that ‘done’ could be used in it, particularly, for the fact that Jo Cox campaigned for remain and was murdered by a white supremacist person. Some of the terms he used while attacking the MP were echoed in Mr Johnson’s presentation: betrayal, traitors, surrender etc. Except, this could, clearly, be seen ‘inciting, glorifying and sanctioning violence’.   

White supremacy or, any other type of supremacy for that matter, not only exists in believing in its superiority and supremacy but, also, in its divine right to be so and, to achieve that state of being and remaining so, it blends all of the following with infinite hatred, violence, fury, aggression and rage into a cocktail of dangerous states: therefore, xenophobia feeds it, misogyny excites it, masochism acts as illicit drug and spirit and a violent contempt for reason, science, mathematics, evidence, history, rule of law and common sense or, in short, against education and enlightenment, acts as its sustaining oxygen with which it goes on rampaging and ravaging. People, like Mr Boris Johnson, are part of the elite and of the elite-educated but they find that adopting all these various expressions serves them and their cause: self-interest and self-advancement so they take up these parts and form a jacket and wear it to seek and gather their supporters into a band of their own, with whom they seek to advance their self-interest. In this, they appear to present and portray themselves as ‘the saviour’. United Kingdom requires no saviour: because the country and its people have developed the system of governance and rule of law, which have been perfected over centuries in such ways, that the country and the people have achieved the mighty power to eliminate the need forever to become so weak that they would need ‘rescuing by demagogues’! Demagogues are needed by societies or, rather, jungles, savaged and ravaged by savages. United Kingdom is a beacon of an advanced civic society where the law rules and that, no one can change.

However, this demonstration act, should wake every single human being, every single citizen of this country to the deadly dangerous direction of politics of this country. This, what began last night at the Parliament’ is not the end but the beginning of what would be the election campaign. Every citizen must make a stand and every progressive political party and organisation and all other agencies working in society must make a stand and recognise, reject and demolish these mortal dangers, that this white supremacy presents to the country and the nation. It challenges the rule of law, it challenges the constitutional framework, it challenges the exercise, working and delivery of that rule of law through a legitimate and constitutional framework of the judiciary, it wants to weaken, muzzle, devastate and demolish the very expression of the will of the people as the Parliament and it brings about the notion that nations, peoples are ‘rescued’ by demagogues or ‘strongman’.

United Kingdom has been built through centuries of continual works of ever-going developments, which have resulted in a system of governance under the rule of law where no strongman or strongwoman is required but the entire system of the rule of law is enough. Mr Johnson has begun is official election campaign but he has shown all he was capable of in the last very few weeks, culminated to their worst, all-bottom performance yesterday at the Parliament: which should send chill-waves down the spine of each and every citizen of this country and should get all the progressive parties and organisations to see, acknowledge and register the mortal dangers, that present to the country and its people, as well as, to the very fabric and architecture of this country. There is no place, there can not be any place, there must not be any place in the United Kingdom for demagogues to rise up so that they can demolish the nation’s constitution, the state of the rule of law and the architecture of governance, of what is the best of humanity: the highest best use and utilisation of the architecture of human rationality, resulting in a governance system and public affairs management system, that, literally, translate reason and rationality into action, where there is neither a need nor a requirement to use any violence or force other than plain and simple reason, science and evidence.:::ω.

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 260919 || Up ||

|| Tuesday: September 24: 2019 || ά. The UK Supreme Court has declared the Prorogation of Parliament ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’. Justices sitting at the Supreme Court, hearing this case were Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales. In giving the judgment of the Court Lady Hale said, ‘’We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union.’’

‘’They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27^th or 28^th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9^th and 12^th September until 14^th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”. Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30^th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31^st October.’’

‘’On 15^th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9^th to 12^th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14^th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation. On 27^th or 28^th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates.’’

‘’On 28^th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly.’’

A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

2: Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3^rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6^th September and received royal assent on 9^th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31^st October. On 11^th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law.’’

‘’That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect. Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17^th to 19thSeptember.’’

‘’Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.

‘’However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament. The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty -that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased.’’

‘’The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution. If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

3: The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31^st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess.’’

‘’While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31^st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about.’’

‘’The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15^th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14^th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days.’’

‘’It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31^st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.’’

‘’The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect.’’

‘’The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects.’’

‘’Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end. This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.’’

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.’’:::ω.

Read the Summary Judgment  

Read the Full Judgment  

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 240919 || Up ||

|| Tuesday: September 17: 2019 || ά. Bus operators across England are setting out a bold strategy to work with the government to improve services, help tackle climate change and get a billion more passenger journeys by bus by 2030. The new strategy Moving Forward Together has been launched late last week by the Confederation of Passenger Transport:CPT.

The strategy includes new commitments from the industry, including, a pledge to work with the government to make every new bus an ultra-low or zero emission bus from 2025. The CPT is the voice for bus and coach operators across the UK, representing over 95% of the bus industry, including, the major operators Arriva, First Group, Go Ahead, National Express and Stagecoach, as well as, hundreds of smaller operators.

Additional commitments in the strategy include reducing travel costs for job seekers and apprentices by 2021, introducing price-capped daily and weekly tickets across multiple operators by 2022 in urban areas and working with the government to develop innovative sustainable solutions to rural transport. 

Alongside the industry’s commitments CPT is calling on the Government to introduce a national bus strategy to help deliver better bus services across England. This would include bus journey time targets for local transport authorities, speeding up millions of journeys to work, school and leisure and encouraging more people to get on the bus.

Mr Graham Vidler, CPT Chief Executive, said, “Buses are, already, the cleanest form of road transport and have a crucial role to play in tackling environmental issues and helping to meet important targets on improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions.

With the right support from government to make the transition the bus industry will buy only ultra-low or zero emission buses by 2025, reducing CO2 emissions by half a million tonnes a year.”

Buses are a vital part of the UK’s infrastructure with passengers generating £64 billion of economic output annually. Each person takes around 50 bus trips per year and 60% of all public transport journeys are taken by bus. Every day, over two million people all over the country travel to work by bus and a million more to school or college.

Baroness Vere, the Minister for Buses, said, “Buses link people with work, school, friends and family and are vital to helping drive down emissions by providing a greener travel option. 

The Confederation of Passenger Transport’s strategy emphasises the importance of the bus industry and I look forward to working with them to continue to bolster bus services across the country.”

The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK:CPT is the national trade association, representing bus and coach operators.:::ω.

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 170919 || Up ||

|| Thursday: September 12: 2019 || ά. The Johnson Government has prorogued Parliament so that it does not get to sit and debate, discuss and raise questions to the Government’s dangerous policy of getting the UK, crashing out of the European Union with No Deal. The Prime Minister does not, therefore, have to stand at the Parliament and answer questions of the MPs, who are there because their constituents voted for them to be there to do exactly that: to keep the executive at scrutiny and take account of it to ensure the rule of law. However, this is, precisely, why he had decided to prorogue Parliament, regardless of whatever he or his propagandists say. The idea that this prorogation was done so that the government can prepare a Queen’s Speech is laughable, since, the Johnson Government is now a Minority Government; it can not pass a bucket through the Parliament, let alone, anything else!

Yet, this Prime Minister, who does not like the Parliament and the MPs scrutinising his policy and the direction of his government, goes and tries to answer questions from ‘the people’. What does this say: is it because one can not just say anything at Parliament, that one likes but, tell the truth, for lying to the Parliament or misleading it or offering it falsity or misinformation is a dangerous thing, that the Parliament and the system of governance will not tolerate, so that the Prime Minister goes out and pretends to be a ‘people’s champion’ while the fact remains, that the electorate did not get to elect him to begin with and he pretends to answer questions, in so doing, he can say anything he likes as he and a whole lot of other people did at the European Union Referendum. Because these places, where some people are gathered, are not the Parliament and these people have no power to do anything about what is said to them: whether they were told lies or half-truths or fabrications.

‘The people’, without the Parliament standing for them as part of the Constitution and governance system, are nothing because they do not have any power to do anything about anything. This, effectively, establishes an infinite disempowerment of the people because their power, concentrated in the Parliament, is mighty, while, without the Parliament, they are, literally, made into a sand dune where each individual of a nation is a sand grain. This is why despots, tyrants, dictators and self-interest seeking ‘people’s darlings’ seek to separate the two vital parts of a democratic system of governance: the Parliament and the people and they try to set the people against themselves, in this, they are weaponised against their own Parliament. The People become the most powerful, most organised and most legally methodical and most awesome a power in a democratic governance system when they have a Parliament, that stands as their ‘Will, Power and Sovereignty’.

Take that Parliament away and the people become disjointed individuals and they at are their most helpless and most disempowered and they are spread about the landscape, who have no constitutional power to exercise and in that powerlessness they are manipulated, directed and herded towards despots and tyrants, who tell them that they are the champions of the people!

And, take a look at the Yellorhammer Report, that the Government did not want to release but, the very Parliament forced it to do that: the No Deal exit of the UK is a calamitous pathway for the country and it portrays the reality as such. However, the most vital point about it is that the very people, the vast majority of the working and non-working poor and all the groups of vulnerable people of the UK are the ones, who will pay the highest price for this No Deal exit. But this Johnson government does not want people to see that. But people will see and they will do better were their Parliament is scrutinising all these. But their Parliament is prorogued so that the people have lost their ears and eyes and voices.

This is why this government shuts down the Parliament and keeps going and seeking to manipulate people and getting them all misled towards a dangerous path, ruinous path, that are not so for the rich but for the rest of the country, who are not rich and they are to pay the price of this No Deal exit as the Conservative governments made sure they paid for the financial crash, year after year after year. This is how and this is why governments, like Mr Johnson’s, seek to separate people from their Parliament and set them against it and, then, they try to direct and herd the most powerless people towards becoming their ‘supporting’ base. And, the people keep on paying the price for the absolute, complete and overwhelming disempowerment for there is nothing, that now can work for them. .:::ω.

|| reginehumanicsfoundation.com || 130919 || Up ||