Up yours Delors, CU EU (finally some good news)

The excellent Gerald Warner has more on this here.

"The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)"

He finishes of with these excellent lines

"Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords."

I have argued here and here and here and here and here and here, the same points about the Supreme Court bollocks. It is one of the Raison d'être for this blog. I think eventually the bollocks will be removed mainly because Parliament is slowly but surely being filled with proper Albions - the kind Churchill would have been proud to call his friends (or so at least I think). If ‘democracy’ means anything, it means not having to agree with apologists of the naked pursuit of power.

On a completely different note (and more a reminder to myself in the future), here is a very interesting post on human rights over a ConservativeHome. I strongly advise you to read it.

UK Supreme Court Part II

As promised I would publish the correspondence between myself and the Ministry of Justice with regards to the issue of the logo of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - the greatest judicial farce in the modern British history.

Yasser Mehmood

Please contact Rob Boyland, Communications Manager, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Tel: 020 7960 1887, robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
------------

Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

I write to you with regards to the new Supreme Court. It has dawned upon me that the emblem that you yourself so proudly display on your homepage and the one which was approved by the HM the Queen is not the actual emblem which is actually displayed in the court itself.

Here is the link to your own http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/supreme-court-official-emblem.htm announcement of the new emblem (may I draw your attention to the St. Edwards crown).

Here is a link to an album provided by the BBC of the new Supreme Court http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8151625.stm - please make your way to the first picture in the album. There seems to be a distinct lack of the St. Edwards crown in the emblem as displayed in the new Supreme Court. Instead there is an emblem which does not have the approval of the HM the Queen, so it must be assumed since there are no references to the monarchy. If one were to continue to trawl through the album as displayed by the BBC then there is more evidence of emblems which do not have the crown.

If my question has not given itself away by now I shall add it for clarity; why is not the emblem displayed which was approved by HM the Queen? Has the government taken it upon itself to ignore Royal Prerogative?

Yours Sincerely
------------------------
Robert Boyland

Thank you for your enquiry.

We have several versions of our emblem which it is agreed that we can use. We are allowed to use different versions artistically as it will be used on a large variety of items and occasions. This is fairly common practice with emblems and logos. Where appropriate the formal logo with the Crown has been used, for instance on the homepage and prominently at the front of the building.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Kind regards,

Rob

--------------------------
Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

Thank you for your reply. I can see how you would think that this is common practise, yet for the businesses that I have worked for, I cannot recall anyone having used that practise. Agreed, this is a government arm yet were the other emblems approved by the Queen as well (you said that you had agreed to use the other emblems, but who agreed to this)? On a further note, all the other government branches e.g. the Foreign Office only use the Royal Coat of Arms as their main identifier along with their name.

Not yet understanding what kind of relationship you are intending for the Supreme Court with the public, surely using more than one identifier will confuse people not in the least people like myself; who find it astonishing that the government has the audacity to abolish the Law Lords but then insult the monarchy even further by not following common practise i.e. to use the St. Edwards Crown on governmental departments.

Moreover who decides when it is appropriate to use the primary logo with the crown? When would occasion arise when it would not be appropriate to accentuate that Britain is a constitutional monarchy and that the Crown has Royal Prerogative?

As you can see Mr. Boyland I am confused.

Kind Regards
---------------------------
Robert Boyland

I hope the following clarifies things for you. The logo containing the Crown will be used in all formal correspondence and as I have said is a main identifying feature at the entrance to the building. The emblem combines the four heraldic elements of the three legal jurisdictions of the UK - England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At its formal level, the emblem is surmounted by the Crown, as the Monarch is the source of the Court's authority.

Our aim is always to apply the emblem thoughtfully and appropriately to reflect the activities of the Supreme Court. The versions of the logo are designed to be versatile enough to be interpreted in different ways - that reflect the authority of the institution it symbolises, but also the open and accessible nature of the building with its visitor spaces and public art. This is why the semi-formal logo is used in the foyer within which you highlight in your link. This semi-formal version will also be used on visitor leaflets.

The logo with the Crown will be used in all formal applications where the authority of the Supreme Court and its relationship to the Crown is to be emphasised, such as judgments, reports, Justice's stationery, formal invitations, etc and to reiterate is a main identifying feature at the front of the building. The Royal Coat of Arms will also go above the main entrance.

The way the logo is applied is a clear and sensible way of distinguishing between formal and more informal communications and in no way undermines the relationship of the Court to the Crown.

Yours sincerely,

Rob

Rob Boyland
Communications Manager
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square,
London SW1P 3BD
Tel: 020 7960 1887
Email:robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
-------------------------

What did we learn from all of this then? Well, besides from the obvious one that the Ministry of Justice has yet to decide which font they are to go with, not much.

Their logic does not work at all instead "Rob" goes onto explain to me what the logo actually looks like assuming that my powers of perception are towered over by his, the communications manager of the MoJ. You understand dear reader we are not to make our own judgements about the Supreme Court, nor are we to criticise it. Our silent and obedient consent is all that they require and need.

When or Why, on earth would the Supreme Court be used in an informal way? Surely the term 'Supreme' comes with at least a modicum of superiority and the required respect for such authority. Whatever it may be it is not a social science project run by some erstwhile council, who can quite rightly pander to its differences. Thus, regardless of my sincere opposition to its establishment, it should not be made into a farce by this ridiculous little man "Rob", who undoubtedly had a part to play in its establishment (how do you think he got his job), and his claque just because they think they will be 'miss-understood' by the school children who come to visit. Am I making mountains out of molehills? No, a symbol is given power by people and the people of the UK are very affectionate towards the monarchy. We turn our patriotism towards the Queen no the political establishment (like America). If we take away the people the symbol losses its meaning but if we take away the part of the symbol which reaffirms our affection it losses its meaning as well. It is so profoundly stupid that I cannot, for my life, see why they decided to go with this non-option.

"Oii ladies fancy a couple of pints down at the Supreme Court, should be a good blast eyyy?!"

It is the highest judicial authority in the UK and yet it needs two logos one formal and one informal. You can see that at this point I gave up my endeavour with "Rob" as it was leading nowhere. Apparently for the Supreme Court to be open and accessible it needs two logos.

I imagine that if it applies to the Supreme Court why not also to Parliament? We would then have four logos; two for the House of Commons and two for the House of Lords. The armed forces are not to be spared either; they are to adopt one logo for visitors day so as to not insult sensibilities of the civilian population; no Union-Jacks - that would make us racist, no swords (in case of the army) - people might get the idea that we actually kill people and definately no Lion (in case of the army) - people might think we support the poaching of this endangered species.

This is New Labour doing what it does best; destruction of character. Just so we do not forget why they did this in the first place lets recall. The reform of the Law Lords was motivated by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial. Yet it has worked perfectly well since 1876 when the Law Lords came into existence under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

But I am sure we could not spend £60 million on something better (that is to say that the Supreme Court will cost £58 million more to run, annually, than the Law Lords).

The UK Supreme Court, 12th of October the mistake begins

David Blunket has written this over at the Times where he examines the new Supreme Court UK. We have covered this issue extensively and will be at the opening of this grand mistake at its opening on the 12th of October, providing pictures and commentary. Consider this very important paragraph as posted by Mr. Blunket

"The problem is that we do not have, and with the new constitutional affairs legislation still will not have, clarity about how, within that separation, we ensure that the judges do their bit to stay independent of political interference but that parliament has the final say on the laws of the land. The sooner we get this sorted, the better. That means ensuring that judges have the power to intervene and to rule against ministers when they exceed the power granted to them by the elected parliament but, on the other hand, that they do not have the power to decide that parliament is wrong or that somehow it should change its mind."

It seems that "independent" in this context is more or less synonymous with unaccountable. It certainly does not mean that the new Court will not have an activist agenda, at odds with that of the elected Government of the day, and remote from the values and concerns of the majority of the British public.

Judicial activism is not a new phenomenon in the UK. The principle of the supremacy of EC over domestic law, and more recently the Human Rights Act, have allowed foreign (ECJ/ECHR) and UK courts effectively to overrule Acts of Parliament. The creation of the new Supreme Court will only accelerate this trend.

The new Court could not have come into being at a worse time. The power and prestige of Parliament are at a very low ebb. In the wake of the expenses scandal, it is difficult to see the Commons reasserting itself against the executive and the party whips, let alone mounting an effective challenge to a confident and self-aggrandizing new Supreme Court. I despair of Parliamentary democracy in this country.

What is the solution then? Well the Law Lords cost the tax payer £2,000,000 a year which is a highly respectable figure if you were to compare it to the working cost of say the American Supreme Court or the Palais the Justice in France. Basically that is to say that the annual cost of the highest court in the UK is a hell of a lot less than most countries, if any comparable to the size and geopolitical status of the UK. Well, the new Supreme Court UK will have an annual budget of £60,000,000 (sixty million pounds compared to two million for the Law Lords).

This is a supremely stupid way of fixing something that does not need mending. The Law Lords worked perfectly fine and were tremendously respected throughout the world particularly because they functioned in such a good way despite they being part of the legislative process (and I say 'despite' not in a derogatory manner since over the past century them being in the House of Lords seems to have had little effect on the legislation, if anything it provided the best legal advice the House could ever have wished for). As with everything with this government they seek to destroy pretty much everything that once used to define Great Britain, and they are doing a spectacularly good job of it at that. The only advise I can offer to the income government is basically repeal the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. You will have saved in the money building the Supreme Court UK, within two years - the building and everything surrounding it has to date added £66,000,000 to the tax payers bill.

And again before you leave this blog let me draw your sincere attention to the emblem posted at the beginning of this entry. Notice the distinct lack of the St. Edwards Crown instituted in 1954 to be part of all governmental emblems. It seems that this government has taken it upon itself to abolish Royal Prerogative as well. I will post my mails regarding this issue with the Ministry of Justice once everything has been finalised. Stay tuned.