Wednesday, 25 January 2017

Who bankrolled Gina Miller and why?

Follow the money is a useful rule to follow in trying to unravel opaque relationships. The BCC asked , who is  Gina Miller, I ask  where did the money come from to finance this very expensive court case?

One of the journos asked this question of Pannick QC on the steps the court after the verdict. Pannick gave  a less than fullsome reply, merely saying that his firm had given their services free in part, pro bono as the lawyers say. But there was an army of lawyers from different firms backing up Pannick. Did they all give their services for free? I doubt it.

In her TV interview with A Marr, Ms Miller said,

"This is about creating legal certainty and actually, everyone in the country should be my biggest fan because I've used my own money and a few of us we have used our own money to create legal certainty for Mrs May to move ahead," she told the programme.

Ho hum. Pannick gave no indication of the total costs but the must be in excess of one million sterling, a lot of money for one private person to find

Look at this case from different angles.

Who gains from a delay or emasculation of Brexit? Certainly big City banking institutions  but they are in bad odour so what would they do? Find someone else who would be more likely to  gain the sympathy of the judiciary. to front up the case. Note that Ms Miller's co-plaintiffs, one Dos Santos, a London-based Spanish hairdresser  and the People's Challenge group, set up by Grahame Pigney - a UK citizen who lives in France - and backed by a crowd-funding campaign. neither  received or invited the same amount of publicity as  Ms Miller or would have attracted the same public sympathy as Ms Miller 

The second angle is what made Ms Miller so suitable to be lead plaintiff in this case? She is photogenic, articulate, ticks all the PC} boxes and is not averse to publicity and TV exposure, indeed she seemed to welcome it.

But look at the inevitable endgame. This was clearly a case destined for  the two highest courts in the land with very pro EU politically correct judges. So who would do the money men want as plaintiff,,
a white male banker or a coloured attractive middle aged female who ticks all the PC boxes for the Lord High Poo Baas. Its a no brainer and it worked.

Mary Archer showed how an attractive, fragrant woman can influence a learned judge when her husband sued and won for libel in 1987. Her husband,s Jeffrey, was subsequently convicted of perjury at that trial  and was imprisoned  but he still retains his seat in the House  of Lords.

Law courts are theatre as much law. Judges are human and can be swayed by non-legal effects. To suggest otherwise runs counter to common sense. Ms Miller makes much of the death threats she received but the same happened to a good friend of mine on the UKIP NEC with the same police result. Its a risk you accept when you go into politics as Cicero well knew.

The Law Lords should have thrown the case out as a matter for parliament not the courts as the dissenting Judges said. This unwarranted judicial activism shows how much we have been infected by EU poison alien to our traditions.

For a similar view click below


Anonymous said...

Apparently in Gina Miller's business promotion she has 3 degrees, in law, HR and marketing except she doesn't have a law degree. She did the course but didn't take the exams. When challenged on this she said she wasn't aware of the mistake in her promotional material - does she strike you as someone who wouldn't check such material? No, me neither. Yes she is very articulate but her continual protest that she is only interested in process not politics strikes me as disingenuous. In my experience when someone keeps banging on about something, it is a lie. She tries to make us believe she is going to all this trouble and expense for our good and we should be grateful for her efforts - What!!!

Edward Spalton said...

I distinctly recall senior Labour people saying that they aimed to establish a " European-style Ministry of Justice". The Supreme Court was part of that programme, ostensibly to avoid a conflict between the political and judicial roles of the Law Lords whom the Supreme Court replaced at great expense.

Under the old dispensation, the Lord Chancellor, a highly qualified lawyer, had a great influence over the appointment and conduct of judges. Now the Minister of Justice, a run of the mill politician of no required legal qualifications, dresses up in the Lord Chancellor's robes and it has been necessary to appoint a separate Lords Speaker at a fat salary. No longer can the Lord Chancellor claim, as in Gilbert & Sullivan's " Iolanthe"

" The law is the true embodiment,
Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw
and, I , my Lords, embody the law"

Anonymous said...

Supreme Court - Royal Prerogative
In particular third para’
Scroll down to John Bereton comment did Gina miller complain when royal prerogative used to go in.

Somewhat relevant extract from;
Throughout our time in the EEC/EU Ministers have regularly used prerogative powers to bind us into EU decisions, regulations and judgements which Parliament has been unable to vote on or prevent. Many of these have adversely affected our right to be a sovereign and free people. It was curious that the High Court of England thought that was acceptable yet using the same prerogative powers to bring the right to self-government back was not.