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