For years, conservative Americans have viewed the EU’s globalist-engineered socialist dystopia as the ultimate cautionary tale. Those same conservatives cheered when a majority of British citizens voted for the “Brexit” to unshackle themselves from progressive elitists, who hold national sovereignty and the right of the people to choose their own destiny in utter contempt. Last Thursday in a complete mockery of that vote, Britain’s High Court ruled a vote in Parliament is required prior to the start of exit negotiations. “The Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the EU,” declared Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas.

The Crown, or royal prerogative, consists of powers relegated to the Monarch or Government ministers that may be used without the consent of Parliament. They are centuries old, and Prime Minister Theresa May promised to use them to invoke Article 50 — the legal mechanism for a member state withdrawal from the EU — and commence two years of exit negotiations to be initiated by the end of March 2017.

A pro-Remain group of plaintiffs calling itself the People’s Challenge contested May’s right to use those powers, claiming that an exit from the EU would eliminate certain rights, including the ability to move freely throughout the EU bloc. Three senior judges — Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales — agreed, insisting those rights could not be removed “unless Parliament had conferred upon the Crown authority to do so.”

And therein lies the rub. On June 9, 2015 the House of Commons overwhelmingly passed the European Union Referendum Act of 2015 by a margin of six to one, followed by the House of Lords’ approval on December 14, 2015. The Royal Assent, as in the Queen’s formal approval of an act of Parliament making it official law, followed two days later.

In other words, Parliament conferred upon the people themselves the authority to choose whether or not to leave the EU in a referendum scheduled for June 23, 2016. During the interim, the Remain side launched a furious campaign that sought to portray the Leave side as racists, bigots, xenophobes and people willing to wreak havoc on the economy of Britain and the entire world.

It didn’t fly and the people voted in favor of Leave by a margin of 52% to 48%. Nonetheless the High Court insisted Parliament retains sovereign powers that trump the royal prerogative, negating the will of the people and essentially giving the Remainers a do-over.

In a scathing editorial hammering the Court’s decision, The Daily Express aptly likened it to a crisis “as grave as anything since the dark days when Churchill vowed we would fight them on the beaches.” “How disgraceful that when our Parliament was being stripped of its sovereignty by a succession of treaties, all of which ceded more and more power to the EU, we heard not one squeak of protest about our constitutional rights from those who now make so much noise,” the paper stated. “It is only when we try at last to take back the power to govern ourselves, make our own laws and control our own borders that the protests spring up. Nor have the courts ever expressed concern about UK powers being handed to the EU — only when the flow is about to be reversed does the judiciary step in.”

Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee illuminates the contempt that drives the progressive mindset when the people dare to defy their “superior” wisdom. “There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests, their own interests and the views of their constituents,” Toynbee asserts, because Brexit “is the greatest threat to national wellbeing since the war, and this will test the mettle not just of individual MPs, but of the nature and purpose of a representative democratic system.”

Thus, Toynbee’s definition of a representative democratic system is one that not only disregards the initial approval for a referendum and the peoples’ vote to leave, but one that ultimately subjugates the UK to the mandates of Brussels bureaucrats.

Pro-Leave businessman Arron Banks explains what Toynbee and her fellow are really all about. “They didn’t get the answer they wanted, and now they’re going to use every dirty trick in the book to try to sabotage, delay or water down Brexit,” he explains. “It’s no surprise that the legal establishment has joined the political class in declaring war on British democracy. Why wouldn’t unelected judges want to preserve an EU system where unelected elites like themselves are all-powerful?”

The government plans to appeal the decision to the nation’s Supreme Court, which could begin hearing the case as early as Dec. 7.

If the Supreme Court refuses to overturn the decision and grants Parliament another vote? As The Express explains, “[T]he Remainers in the Commons will have a field day tabling crippling amendments that will make a mockery of the referendum result.”

It is likely worse than that. The process of disengaging the UK from the EU was going to take two years under the best of circumstances. Now, that timetable has been disrupted by the High Court, and the possibility of an early general election. Furthermore, an the Brexit vote was an “advisory referendum,” (as opposed to a “binary” referendum with a fixed outcome) that distinction would allow a sovereign Parliament to overturn it.

Ironically, that sovereign Parliament could vote to surrender its own sovereignty and that of the entire nation.

Court nullification of the people’s will should sound quite familiar to Americans. So should the subject matter: Our own presidential election is a referendum on whether Americans will abide a globalist or nationalist agenda. And just like in the UK, those who prefer living in a sovereign nation are portrayed as racist, xenophobic, irredeemable “deplorables” by Hillary Clinton and other “open borders” advocates.

Clinton also has a preference for an activist Supreme Court that “needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy,” as she stated in the third debate. Note the utter contempt for the Constitution that informs the assumption some Americans are inherently more virtuous or evil than others.

Unfortunately, contempt is the tip of the iceberg. “All of the fundamental institutions of our system have been warped beyond all recognition,” writes columnist Monica Crowley. “And all are engaged in social engineering in every part of American life, in violation of the essential freedoms the Founders risked everything to give to us.”

A vote for Clinton endorses that violation, as well as an unprecedented level of gangster government from which we may never recover.

The UK is a bellwether, revealing the despicable agenda of a globalist ruling class that is all about the acquisition and maintenance of power — by any means necessary. In America, Clinton is their champion. Trump, flaws and all, is our own Brexit, the road back to American exceptionalism and Liberty.

In short, the electorate can “drain the swamp” — or drown in it. And while they’re choosing, they might ask themselves a simple question: Isn’t 30 years of Clinton corruption that contaminates everyone and everything it touches more than enough?