UK Supreme Court hears cases that PM Johnson's parliament suspension was illegal

[webfact]

UK Supreme Court hears cases that PM Johnson's parliament suspension was illegal

By Michael Holden

 

FILE PHOTO: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves after a meeting with Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel in Luxembourg, September 16, 2019. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government will seek to persuade Britain's top court this week that his decision to suspend parliament until shortly before the date for Brexit was not illegal as Scottish judges concluded last week.

 

Johnson announced on Aug. 28 that he had asked Queen Elizabeth to prorogue, or suspend, parliament for five weeks from last week until Oct. 14, saying the shutdown was necessary to allow him to introduce a new legislative agenda.

 

Opponents said the real reason was to prevent scrutiny and challenges by parliament where he now has no majority to his Brexit plans, especially his promise to leave the European Union by Oct. 31 even if no divorce deal has been agreed.

 

In a damning judgement, Scotland's highest court ruled last Wednesday that the suspension was unlawful and was an "egregious" attempt to stymie parliament.

 

However, a week earlier the High Court of England and Wales rejected a similar case, saying the matter was political and not one for judicial interference.

 

Both cases are now going before the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the United Kingdom, and its 11 judges will give a final ruling on whether Johnson's advice to the queen was illegal.

 

Supporters of the legal challenges, a mixture of anti-Brexit campaigners and opposition lawmakers, want parliament to be immediately recalled if the court backs them. Critics also say that if judges decide Johnson misled the monarch, then he must resign.

 

Johnson said the current session of parliament was longer than any since the English Civil war in the 17th century, adding that lawmakers would have plenty of time to again discuss Brexit after an EU summit on Oct. 17-18.

 

When asked on Friday if he had misled Elizabeth, Johnson said "Absolutely not". "Indeed, as I say, the High Court in England plainly agrees with us, but the Supreme Court will have to decide," he added.

 

The Conservative government say opponents of Brexit are using the courts to try to frustrate Britain's departure from the bloc which was backed by Britons in a 2016 referendum.

 

The Supreme Court ruled against the government in a similar constitutional case in 2017 when it said ministers could not begin the formal two-year exit process without the approval of parliament.

 

That case was led by investment manager Gina Miller, who is one of those taking on the government in the current legal battle along with former Conservative Prime Minister John Major.

 

The Supreme Court hearings will run until Thursday, with the verdict not expected until Friday at the earliest.

 

(Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-17

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Araiwah]

They've done nothing for 3 years and now they're complaining that he wants to close parliament for FOUR extra days. You honestly couldn't make this up. 

[the guest]

I think all the British politicians should be rounded-up and put in a remote place far away from the electorate, where they can do minimal damage.

 

 

[legend49]

2 hours ago, the guest said:

I think all the British politicians should be rounded-up and put in a remote place far away from the electorate, where they can do minimal damage.

 

 

USA?

[Thingamabob]

How on earth can anyone pass judgement in this case other than one based on pure speculation?

[IssanMichael]

6 hours ago, the guest said:

I think all the British politicians should be rounded-up and put in a remote place far away from the electorate, where they can do minimal damage.

 

 

Good idea we could call it a zoo

[CaptainNemo]

3 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

How on earth can anyone pass judgement in this case other than one based on pure speculation?

Yeah... using the courts to govern the country is not a good direction to go in. We have a Judiciary that many don't trust; a Legislature that many don't trust; and an Executive that many don't trust; the remedy is not letting them decide things away from the public, but to have a General Election, and end this rotten regime.

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, IssanMichael said:

Good idea we could call it a zoo

Well that is how it looks from outside already ????

[Thongkorn]

Where is Cromwell today , He is badly need ed to March into parliament and tell all the MP to  go forth and Multiply.

[oldhippy]

43 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Where is Cromwell today , He is badly need ed to March into parliament and tell all the MP to  go forth and Multiply.

With Cromwell not available any more, we could send the TV brexiteer warriors in.

.

.

[oldhippy]

14 hours ago, Araiwah said:

They've done nothing for 3 years and now they're complaining that he wants to close parliament for FOUR extra days. You honestly couldn't make this up. 

Cummings needs these 4 days to come up with a cunning plan to make the UK the land of milk and honey again.

[Loiner]

Cummings needs these 4 days to come up with a cunning plan to make the UK the land of milk and honey again.

He’s probably got one, or more. Hope he sticks it into the Remainers properly with the next plan, and that it’s too late for them to do anything about it.

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Cummings needs these 4 days to come up with a cunning plan to make the UK the land of milk and honey again.

Poor Dominic, not going well for the "Cunning" plotter right now. A King Midas in reverse story, everything he touches turns to cow dung. 

I look forward to his next daft plan with amused anticipation, with any luck Boris will end up in prison as a result. 

[Nigel Garvie]

9 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Well that is how it looks from outside already ????

Maybe it's all just been a dream as this video suggests.

 

https://www.facebook.com/thedailymash/videos/742203889551767/

[Thailand]

It appears that some of the judges hearing the arguments are the same bunch who advised the queen to give Johnson the go ahead to close parliament.

What do you think he outcome will be?

[tifino]

... been sitting longer than that time back in the 1700s!! 

 - that would have been when they brought in Transportation, to the colonies...  

maybe the pollies need to try out a few seats on the next convict barque?

[JAG]

11 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

Yeah... using the courts to govern the country is not a good direction to go in. We have a Judiciary that many don't trust; a Legislature that many don't trust; and an Executive that many don't trust; the remedy is not letting them decide things away from the public, but to have a General Election, and end this rotten regime.

Well said. Unfortunately we also have a Judiciary which quite fancies a role in governing, a legislature which is unwilling to face an election and an executive which has been rendered unable to function by that legislature.  The legislature, having engineered the ability to usurp the role of the executive is unwilling to risk the public verdict; the government rebels because they know that they will lose their seats, and the opposition because they know that they are unlikely to win the election. They will not (risk) hold an election until the government (Tory) rebels can regain control of their parliamentary party, and their allies in the  opposition parliamentary party (Labour) can oust their current leadership, who effectively make them electable. We could be in for a long wait.

 

This is what happens when our parliament allows personal ambitions to replace the constitutional conventions which govern it. They have been helped to do this by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. which is being misused to allow this.

[grumpy 4680]

    Boris has done now't wrong, he has used a law to defend his position against a CROOKED bunch of Mp's who are only wanting for themselves, and ignoring the peoples wishes on the referendum, they are the crooks who should be in the dock, and the crooked Law Makers supporting them.

   Ted Heath and others received a bonus from the EU, Tony Blair has always dreamed of becoming an EU President, Heseltine gets a Huge Subsidy from the EU and Gina Miller is Supported and Paid by a Foreign Agent, Thats corruption at the highest level, Yet those crooks are allowed to influence other Mp's to destroy Brexit.

   The deal or no deal is irrelevant, just a dirty tricks issue by those remaining crooked Mp's who want to serve there own agenda, and ignore the constitution and wish of the people.

   The Judges should be Duty Bound to support Boris, as he is not doing any Wrong, The EU only want the UK's money, so they are doing their best to scupper Boris.

[JonnyF]

If the Judiciary wants a role in governing then they must face election, the same as politicians do.

 

They would do well do dismiss this case ASAP. We already have a Parliament that is not fit for purpose, a speaker that is not impartial and an opposition that do not want an election. If the Judiciary start interfering with something that is not a justiciable issue then all hell could break loose. All because Remainers cannot accept losing a Democratic vote. What an embarrassment this has become.

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

Yeah... using the courts to govern the country is not a good direction to go in.

What do you mean "to go in". it's been that way for hundreds of years. Whether people like it or not, constitutional law does exist. During the proceedings there has been a stream of citations from previous cases. It has been established that under the UK arrangement that the legislature is the senior partner, not the executive, do you really think that the junior should be controlling the senior.

Brexit has caused a great deal of damage and stress to the citizens of the UK in one way or another. Yesterday the judges pointed out several times that guilt can be by "motive" or "effect". Those that voted to leave should reflect on the "effect".

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, Araiwah said:

They've done nothing for 3 years and now they're complaining that he wants to close parliament for FOUR extra days. You honestly couldn't make this up. 

Your comment indicates the general lack of understanding between prorogation and recess. The former means all parliament business comes to an end and the latter allows parliament business to continue under different arrangements. MP's have a say in when a recess is held but not on prorogation.

During the hearing yesterday the judges requested an explanation on the difference and were referred to the Parliament briefing paper, you should read it.

[JonnyF]

39 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What do you mean "to go in". it's been that way for hundreds of years. Whether people like it or not, constitutional law does exist. During the proceedings there has been a stream of citations from previous cases. It has been established that under the UK arrangement that the legislature is the senior partner, not the executive, do you really think that the junior should be controlling the senior.

Brexit has caused a great deal of damage and stress to the citizens of the UK in one way or another. Yesterday the judges pointed out several times that guilt can be by "motive" or "effect". Those that voted to leave should reflect on the "effect".

Brexit hasn't caused anything, it hasn't happened yet.

 

What has caused damage and stress is Remainers refusing to accept the result. Now we have a dysfunctional Remain Parliament blocking the Deal, No Deal and an election, a Remainer speaker allowing it all to happen, and now a Remainiac "businesswoman" Gina Miller dragging it all through the supreme court. 

 

All because Remainers cannot accept losing a democratic vote. What an embarrassment.

[CaptainNemo]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What do you mean "to go in". it's been that way for hundreds of years. Whether people like it or not, constitutional law does exist. During the proceedings there has been a stream of citations from previous cases. It has been established that under the UK arrangement that the legislature is the senior partner, not the executive, do you really think that the junior should be controlling the senior.

Brexit has caused a great deal of damage and stress to the citizens of the UK in one way or another. Yesterday the judges pointed out several times that guilt can be by "motive" or "effect". Those that voted to leave should reflect on the "effect".

The English court ruled that this matter is not justiciable, i.e.: it's political.

Specifically:

Quote

The judges said: “The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

 

There was also a practical difficulty for the courts to determine when to intervene, the judges noted. “All of these arguments face the insuperable difficulty that it is impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure. There is no legal measure of the length of time between parliamentary sessions,” they said.

It goes on to discuss the balance beween the three arms, as opposed to hierarchy (the legislature, for practical reasons, cannot be senior to the executive in all matters, otherwise it becomes the executive), and also to highlight the limits of where the Judiciary should go in terms of constitutional law:

Quote

“The expanded concept has been fashioned to invite the judicial arm of the state to exercise hitherto unidentified power over the executive branch of the state in its dealings with parliament.

“The constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom have evolved to achieve a balance between the three branches of the state; and the relationship between the executive and parliament is governed in part by statute and in part by convention … This is territory into which the courts should be slow indeed to intrude by recognising an expanded concept of parliamentary sovereignty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/11/english-judges-explain-decision-to-reject-prorogation-challenge

 

The Scottish ruling seems to be using the 1689 "Claim of Right Act" used to depose King James VI and replace him with William and Mary for arguably "religious (bigotry) reasons". With the reason given that this specific prorogation is a misuse of the procedure.

 

Quote

"because it had the purpose of stymying parliament”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

Using this:

Quote

That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28/paragraph/p43

 

I don't find the Scottish ruling as safe as might be being reported.

I would be surprised if the Supreme court didn't uphold the English courts' ruling, because it's basically a bit more specific, and the Scottish court ruling seems a bit evasive. There are no specifics you can measure: how frequent is "frequently"?

You could say, well, it shouldn't be longer than the last longest progation (3 weeks), by John Major, and nobody challenged the motives of his prorogation, which some do now.

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

 

So, there might be a case for limiting the prorogation to 19 days, but that figure seems arbitrary.

 

The courts may have to look at prorogation history:

Quote

To put the 33 calendar days into context:

• Between 1900 and 1930, it was not unusual for there to be lengthy breaks between sessions, a mean average of about 72 calendar days. The median average was 53 calendar days.
• Between 1930 and 2017, the mean average was about 5 calendar days, a median average of about 4 calendar days.
• Between 1999 and 2017, the mean average was about 8 calendar days. The median average is around 5 calendar days.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0111

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom

So, yes, pre-WW2, prorogations were often much longer than Boris's; and yes, more recently, Parliament has seen typical prorogations of about 1 week. On what grounds could the Supreme court ignore prorogation lengths prior to 1930? If the opponents are using law from 1689, then it seems difficult for them to argue that prorogation lengths since then should be disregarded. That there might be motive or effect is also consistent with previous historical prorogations. To rule on that basis on a Parliamentary procedure seems to be not based on any law or precedent; i.e.: "guilt" of what, exactly? Not calling Parliaments? Where does refusing to have a General Election fit into that?

 

I can understand the Remainers going for the argument that proroguing Parliament is stymying it, but their position doesn't look as strong when they refuse to vote for a General Election, twice. I can understand them arguing that recently prorogations are about 1 week long, but they're using a law from 330 years ago that doesn't say anything about prorogation length, or about whether Parliaments should be called frequently for any debate or only important things. Moreover, John Major's prorogation, which is reported to be for the purpose of avoiding an embarrassing report about alleged corruption being debated, was not challenged, and Parliament seemed to accept this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/mar/19/conservatives.uk

 

The session of Parliament that has been ended is unusually long (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/topics/reference/dramatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament/), and it's normal to have a Queen's Speech every year, and normal for a new PM to have one; if the session continues without one, that would be a deviation from the norm, especially if its sole purpose was to create laws that were against the specified outcome (i.e. leaving the EU) of the expressed will of the people in the referendum, that's also been voted on by Parliament.

 

What would be most normal of all, would be for there to be a General election right now, to give a clear mandate to a new government. There is no mandate for another referendum, that much is clear. To do that, you need a fresh election, with a government voted in with a second referendum it it's manifesto, so that parliament can create a new referendum act and all the rest of it.

 

Brexit itself hasn't caused the damage and stree you speak of, only the Remainer response to it has.

[evadgib]

Some random observations so far;

 

- That Gina Miller was given yesterdays date before she had even left court last week should not be overlooked, given the Supreme Court were not supposed to be sitting until October & the entire bench (11 + sub) just happened to be available.

 

- Millar was able to play with her phone, screened around the world, throughout. Doing same outside a court elsewhere landed someone with an arguably similar profile in isolation in Belmarsh for 66 days. At the very least I would have expected her to have been chastised.

 

- Since B-liar tampered with the courts it is now not possible for Judges to be promoted into these positions without all sorts of boxes being ticked. I won't bother listing as the 'Rhubarb' brigade will tar and feather anyone that did, but some good candidates are being held back while others are being promoted beyond their ability and are making decisions that make a mockery of the alleged independence of the Courts. 

 

I do not know which way this will go but it would not surprise me in the least if Parliament and the courts are in league and this proves to be a stitch up.

 

I may yet submit an FoI seeking a breakdown of Leave-v-Remain among the panel; How sad is that?

 

(Content not Poster!)

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, CaptainNemo said:

The English court ruled that this matter is not justiciable, i.e.: it's political.

No country in the world has an ideal form of government. Up until recent years the UK was one of the most respected but not without its flaws. It these days of extremism it is even more of a necessity that there is an independent body to whom the government is accountable, otherwise it is a slippery slope to autocracy.

The courts have ruled on political matters for long enough but it is within their right to pass. You must be of the opinion that TM trying to use prerogative powers to bypass parliament was not a political issue. When it comes to constitutional law there is quite often a lack of precedent and it was pointed out to the court a few times yesterday that should not be a deterrent. What is constitutional law if it is not political.

Unlike yourself I am not trying to preempt the outcome but it is fairly obvious that for some that the desperation to leave the EU is clouding judgement on the bigger issues.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Brexit hasn't caused anything, it hasn't happened yet.

There is none so blind as those that do not want to see.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

Some random observations so far;

 

- That Gina Miller was given yesterdays date before she had even left court last week should not be overlooked, given the Supreme Court were not supposed to be sitting until October & the entire bench (11 + sub) just happened to be available.

 

- Millar was able to play with her phone, screened around the world, throughout. Doing same outside a court elsewhere landed someone with an arguably similar profile in isolation in Belmarsh for 66 days. At the very least I would have expected her to have been chastised.

 

- Since B-liar tampered with the courts it is now not possible for Judges to be promoted into these positions without all sorts of boxes being ticked. I won't bother listing as the 'Rhubarb' brigade will tar and feather anyone that did, but some good candidates are being held back while others are being promoted beyond their ability and are making decisions that make a mockery of the alleged independence of the Courts. 

 

I do not know which way this will go but it would not surprise me in the least if Parliament and the courts are in league and this proves to be a stitch up.

 

I may yet submit an FoI seeking a breakdown of Leave-v-Remain among the panel; How sad is that?

 

(Content not Poster!)

I was not aware of any reporting restrictions

[CaptainNemo]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

No country in the world has an ideal form of government. Up until recent years the UK was one of the most respected but not without its flaws.

Mmm...

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

It these days of

Remain

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

extremism it is even more of a necessity that there is an independent body to whom the government is accountable, otherwise it is a slippery slope to

Remain

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

autocracy.

Right...

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

The courts have ruled on political matters for long enough but

Wait for it...

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

it is within their right to pass.

...but, but, but, you just said earlier... oh never mind... go on...

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

You must be of the opinion that TM trying to use prerogative powers to bypass parliament was not a political issue.

The legislature can't be the executive any more than the judiciary can, the executive has to execute, by definition.

Quote

Early seventeenth-century cases established that while the courts could determine the existence and extent of a prerogative power they could not question or review the manner in which a prerogative power had been exercised.11 The courts also established the principle that if statutory powers exist that cover the same ground as a prerogative power, the government is, in general, not free to choose between them but must act under the statute.12

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/1/146/682649

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

When it comes to constitutional law there is quite often a lack of precedent and it was pointed out to the court a few times yesterday that should not be a deterrent.

"should"? ...according to who? The electorate in a General Election, or a handful of MPs, judges, and wealthy foreigners who oppose them? There is plenty of precedent here for long prorogations, and for lack of justiciability of them. The court can't compensate for prorogation that's already happened.

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

What is constitutional law if it is not political.

You tell me... you seemed very sure about it earlier. The boundary is that law is about process and procedures, not about policy and decisions. A court rule about the conduct of war, but not declare it.

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Unlike yourself I am not trying to preempt the outcome

How am I trying to preempt the outcome? I'm merely presenting what people have said, and the basis for what they've said. You can see the basis of each judgement, and you can infer reasonable suppositions about what is consistent with maintaining checks and balances between the three arms of the state.

The Supreme Court has to decide whether the matter is justiciable, before it can decide whether there's any evidence for it being a deliberate stymying of Parliament. The judiciary can't be seen to be directing the executive, it can only judge on whether due process is being followed, but it's a fine line.

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

but it is fairly obvious that for some that the desperation to leave the EU

Why should it be "desperate"? Why shouldn't people just be presented with a question, vote for what they want, and then for the people who asked the question to deliver it without playing disingenuous games to try and prevent it, whilst relentlessly campaigning a decision that has been made by the public? What's wrong with that?

Brexiters didn't choose to hold the referendum, Remainers did; Brexiters didn't set the question either.

The question was asked because a significant proportion of the population wanted it to be asked, just like your petitions. I mean, did Remainers not know what they voted for when they voted for Remain?

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

is clouding judgement on the bigger issues.

What are the bigger issues? That MPs who have lost legitimacy are using unelected wealthy individual's money to use the courts to force through something they want, rather than hold a General Election?

 

I mean, the conduct of MPs, Parliament, the Speaker, the Civil Service, The Electoral Commission, the BBC, the whole establishment has been utterly unprecedented, bias, irresponsible, and appalling. Those are pretty big issues. The country was not divided until the Remain Regime begin this "total football" onslaught, you even had people appearing to want to go as far as sedition and civil war to impose a minority view on the rest the population. That to me is the "bigger issue": that our democracy has come under the most sustained attack in its history, and it's from the Left.

 

Let's not forget, as Mr Orwell pointed out, that the Left, and Statism is where Fascism comes from. When you have parties like the so-called "Liberal Democrats" glibly proposing to cancel Brexit, and ignore and dismiss the referendum - and this is a party that has been the vociferous proponent of referenda, let's not forget it's blessed AV+ referendum - then this is really disturbing and sinister. It's not the first time that political entities use friendly-sounding names like the "German Democratic Republic", and invoke socialism and democracy in the name of cryptofascism. Now nobody's suggesting the EU is a totalitarian state, but it is a very technocratic organisation, that doesn't respond well to scrutiny and being challenged, and that's part of it's lack of appeal, as well it's poor economic performance, and questionable judgment in the domain of human rights.

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

There is none so blind as those that do not want to see.

Really? Brexit has happened? When did it happen? When did Britain leave the EU? I thought it had been postponed until October 31st 2019...

 

[Nigel Garvie]

39 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

39 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

What are the bigger issues? That MPs who have lost legitimacy are using unelected wealthy individual's money to use the courts to force through something they want, rather than hold a General Election?

 

I mean, the conduct of MPs, Parliament, the Speaker, the Civil Service, The Electoral Commission, the BBC, the whole establishment has been utterly unprecedented, bias, irresponsible, and appalling. Those are pretty big issues. The country was not divided until the Remain Regime begin this "total football" onslaught, you even had people appearing to want to go as far as sedition and civil war to impose a minority view on the rest the population. That to me is the "bigger issue": that our democracy has come under the most sustained attack in its history, and it's from the Left.

 

Let's not forget, as Mr Orwell pointed out, that the Left, and Statism is where Fascism comes from. When you have parties like the so-called "Liberal Democrats" glibly proposing to cancel Brexit, and ignore and dismiss the referendum - and this is a party that has been the vociferous proponent of referenda, let's not forget it's blessed AV+ referendum - then this is really disturbing and sinister. It's not the first time that political entities use friendly-sounding names like the "German Democratic Republic", and invoke socialism and democracy in the name of cryptofascism. Now nobody's suggesting the EU is a totalitarian state, but it is a very technocratic organisation, that doesn't respond well to scrutiny and being challenged, and that's part of it's lack of appeal, as well it's poor economic performance, and questionable judgment in the domain of human rights.

using unelected wealthy individual's money..............ho ho, the Tory party are funded by them, and where did Aaron Banks get his £8million from, Putin probably. 

I mean, the conduct of MPs, Parliament, the Speaker, the Civil Service, The Electoral Commission, the BBC, the whole establishment has been utterly unprecedented, bias, irresponsible, and appalling.................Have you tried the flat Earth Society, they are on the look out for new members, and particularly welcome those who are are fond of conspiracy theories.

 

Let's not forget, as Mr Orwell pointed out, that the Left, and Statism is where Fascism comes from...............an Animal Farm reference I guess. OMG I'm sorry this is utterly ridiculous, Fascism was alive and well ages before Stalin was born. Fascism is a right wing ideology, Communism is a left wing one, you do realize that surely.  Animal Farm was comparing pre Communist Russia (Tzar, upper classes etc) with Stalin's Russia, the point being that Communism can produce despotic leaders just like the previous Feudal system did. Fascism had no part in that story. 

 

Incidentally I have stood in the room where George Orwell wrote many of his brilliant books. It was a deserted cottage on the North East end of the Isle of Jura (Excellent Malt). I used to serve his sister and brother in law as a barman in a pub on the opposite mainland, (1970s). If you haven't read them already you should try Burmese days, The road to Wigan Pier, Homage to Catalonia, you'll get a clearer idea of where Orwell was coming from.  We are currently of course heading for a 1984 UK. A revised MAGA hat has the line "Make Orwell fiction again"!