One of the perennial themes of this blog, and one of the defining dynamics of the era we live in, is "Bureaucracy vs. democracy". The truth is that our ruling class has never really accepted democracy, which they see as mob rule. When pressed, they will often cite the fact that Hitler was voted into power. As a result, they have devised, and are continually elaborating further, an intricate system of rule-based restraints on democracy.
The inspiration for much of this comes from the U.S. Constitution and the tradition of judges being able to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. This tradition was the result of a judicial power grab in the 19th century. The framers of the US constitution did not intend it to operate in this way. But other judges and elites have clearly been enchanted by this spectacle of unaccountable experts keeping the plebs in line through artful interpretations of ambiguous phrases in sets of rules vested with an aura of sacred authority. This is the genesis of the modern human rights systems that have done so much to facilitate the Afro-Asian invasion of Europe and suppress indigenous resistance.
In Britain, much of the bureaucratic encroachment on democracy has come through the practice of judicial review. Although judicial review has existed for centuries, in practice it was rarely used. It began to revive in a big way in the 1960s and its use has grown continuously since then. The essence of judicial review is to decide whether a government, or branch of government, has exceeded its powers or is inadequately fulfilling its legal responsibilities. These legally codified responsibilities have grown apace. For example, the Equalities Act imposes a duty on local government to promote equality and take account, in their decision making, of the impact of their actions on "marginalised groups" and the like. This offers almost infinite scope to mischief-making leftist do-gooders to challenge government policies, even those directly approved by the people, in the courts.
Judicial review was the basis for challenging the government's ability to invoke article 50, triggering Britain's exit process from the European Union. And, of course, the elites conspired to conclude that the dumb plebs shouldn't have their way; just as they would conspire against any future proposals to expel or discriminate against problem-causing aliens. These constitutional restraint systems are typically presented as a shield for ordinary folk against wayward, abusive elites. In reality, they serve exactly the opposite purpose: that of suppressing the will of the people and allowing unaccountable elites to lord it over them.
Our rulers can continue to get away with this for as long as the plebs remain enchanted by aura of sanctity surrounded "the rules", whether those rules are "human rights" or the US constitution. This Brexit farce will hopefully contribute the necessary process of disenchantment. There will be a revolutionary temper in this country if the elites somehow succeed in thwarting Brexit. This may provide an opening for our cause, particularly given the clearly disproportionate involvement of ethnic aliens in the anti-Brexit campaign.
We need to nurture support for a radical ethno-democracy that will subvert and eliminate rule-based restraints. The term "mob rule" is often cast pejoratively at the idea of democracy unfettered. But "mob rule" is exactly what a democracy should be. If the mob had had its way, Europeans would not be on the verge of becoming ethnic minorities in their own lands. I trust the mob more than I trust their rulers.
If a patriotic government ever comes to power in Britain, it should demonstrate the supremacy of parliament by impeaching the judges who made this ruling, removing them from office and imprisoning them. It should also strip the African Gina Miller of the bit of paper that says she is British and expel her from the country.