Constitutional Cononundrums Come May

What of a Hung Parliament?

There appears to be something overlooked here, namely the question of who is the Sovereign and who is the servant. As Sovereign the Queen may do as She pleases [that includes any appointment] for as long as she acts within the perimeters of Her Coronation Covenant.

Parliaments may only consent to Bills pursuant to a Royal Decree under the Petition of Rights, 1628. It cannot enact law. It is interesting to note that governments, courts, and Parliament uphold their right under the Petition of Rights, but deny the inviolable birthrights of the People under same.

Constitutional practices and conventions count for naught as they do not make for law, and often violate the same.

Only a King or Queen enjoys Divine Right to reign and govern (Constitutional Monarchy and the Established Church of England), not any Parliament or any Minister of State. The latter are only elected by the People as Members of Parliament and become Minister of State by appointment and choice of the Sovereign. As such they only at best enjoy delegated authority, which can be lawfully repealed by the Sovereign at any time. That is to say if one applies the Law of the Land ('legem terrae' or the European version 'lex terrae').

In 1297, this term was used in the Magna Carta. The most famous clause of Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land." You see, we already had a 'Human Rights Act' 700 years before the present nonsense came into existence.

More Supreme Court letters to HM Opposition

The following is the mail I sent to Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary, with regards to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created, amongst other things, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

"Dear Mr. Grieve,

I write to you with regards to the newly created Supreme Court. Will the Conservatives go along with this constitutional vandalism or will you seek to restore the law lords as created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? Further, as the party seems to harbour, quite rightly in my opinion, some objects to the ECHR upon who's advice, apparently, part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was based on - will this accelerate your position on the Human Rights Act which you seek to abolish?

Finally, what are the prospects of scrapping the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 completely?"

This is the reply I got from one Mr. Robert Prager - aide to Mr. Grieve.

"Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent email to Dominic Grieve regarding the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act. Your comments are duly noted and have been passed on to Mr Grieve for his consideration.

Conservatives appreciate your concerns regarding the newly established court. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has served this country well since the Nineteenth Century, and at negligible cost.

Now that the Supreme Court is in existence, it needs to function properly and within a sensible budget. Current plans, however, show it will cost £14 million per year to run, compared to £3 million for the previous arrangement. Most will consider that this project, conceived on the back of an envelope by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer represents financial profligacy that cannot be afforded in our current economic situation. However, we fear that the cost of undoing it would be even higher.

The Government has done this whilst at the same time refusing to make other changes that would improve the balance of the constitution. Parliament needs to be stronger, MPs more independent and the Government more accountable to the electorate. David Cameron has outlined Conservative proposals in detail, which can be found online at www.conservatives.com

With regards to the Human Rights Act, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its concerns over the way it has operated in practice. The Act has failed to protect our core liberties, and exacerbated the impact of excessive judicial legislation from both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and our own domestic courts. If elected, a Conservative government would replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights in order to better protect our freedoms whilst giving Parliament greater democratic control over the process of creating new rights. Conservatives are confident this will preserve our personal freedoms, whilst strengthening democratic accountability and social responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Mr Grieve."

Alas it was confirmed what most of us already knew; the Conservatives are patriots in word but not in name. They seem to believe that they are being financially pragmatic by not scrapping the Supreme Court. Yet to Mr. Grieve, somehow, you wont save money by using the Law Lords which are 460% cheaper than the current hodgepodge. Apparently saving £11 million each year is not a viable option, in turn meaning that they would pay of the whole building renovation in just 6 years (the Guildhall building had a price tag of £66 million for renovation costs and accessories). This is at a time when Mr. Cameron wants to cut the price of politics. Yeah right, pull the other leg.

Note also another piece of legislation which aims to bring us inline with the rest of Europe (yes I know that that Constituional Reform Act 2005 was conceived because of the ECHR) which will be put forth for further readings next year; the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

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.

The complexities of Justice: In reply to EU Nosemonkey and his claque

I have been putting of this reply for a while because it is a fairly complex issue to discuss for myself since my academic expertise lies not in jurisprudence but another field of academia. Challenging someone who ostensibly has a degree in law and has worked as a parliamentary researcher in both Westminster and Brussels will at best be difficult at worst disastrous, hopefully the reader understands my apprehension about writing this post. It is like the Danish Army in 1940, taking a stand against the Wehrmacht. Hopefully I will not suffer the same fate as the Danes (they surrendered after 30 minutes). Let it be understood that we harbour no ills against Mr. Nosemonkey - he is a Eurocrat I am not. We respectfully disagree.

Here we go...

This is the reply (in italics) EU Nosemonkey gave to my post titled 'Remember The Awe', where my response in normal font.

The only fundamental of the British constitutional system is that no parliament can bind another. Magna Carta predates parliament - but that does not make it exempt from the rule.

This claim in must take issue with. Magna Carta was signed (not really, King John was illiterate and could not write hence only his seal was on the Magna Cart no his signature) in 1215.

1215
King John agreed to Magna Carta which stated the right of the barons to consult with and advise the king in his Great Council

1236
Earliest use of the term Parliament, referring to the Great Council

Magna Carta created parliament, it was not referred to by name until 1236 agreed, but that does mean the concept of parliament itself was not created in 1215. Parliament is after all a legislative body and since that previously was accorded to the king, but now was done in conjunction with the barons, the concept was born out of Magna Carta and cannot have predated it since it created it.

On the habeas corpus side of things - you have heard of feudalism, right? Which carried on for several centuries after Magna Carta was signed, and which was basically indentured slavery. Habeas corpus has also been suspended by parliament several times during periods of war (that whole "no one parliament can bind another" thing again) - and is also one of the "fundametal rights" of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would - if the Lisbon Treaty is passed - for the first time *force* the British state to hold habeas corpus (among other things) sacrosanct.

Well that makes absolutely no sense at with regards to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even so before coming to terms with that claim, The Conservatives are proposing to scrap the Human Rights Act 2000 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights which surely then must contradict the need for a European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Never mind the rights actually, the Lisbon Treaty creates so many undemocratic features anyway, but that is for another time. But just by the by here are some parts of the Corpus Juris (I am sure you have heard of it), you will notice that having a European Charter of Fundamental Rights helps little when the creator of it is the one we need protection from.

CORPUS JURIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

1) "Powers of investigation of the European Public Prosecutor (EPP) "will include g) To make requests for a person's remand in custody. . .for a period of up to 6 months, renewable for 3 months, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed one of the offences defined above, or good reasons for believing it necessary to stop him committing such an offence. . ." (Page 90, Article 20). Habeas Corpus sacrosanct, are you really sure about that?

This means that the EPP can incarcerate someone for months without charge merely because he thinks they might have committed an offence or might commit an offence. It appears that there is no limit to the number of 3-month extensions. This practise was outlawed in Britain more than 300 years ago as part of the Habeus Corpus Act (1689) which is now incorporated into Britain's Bail Acts.

2) "In the case of partial or total acquittal appeal is also open to the EPP as a prosecuting party" (Page 120 article 27.2 )

The meaning of this is plain - the accused can be tried twice for the same offence thus creating the state of "double jeopardy" which has been banned in Britain for centuries.

3) "Section 6 of the EC Human Rights constitutes an excellent model for the rights which should be granted to the accused;. . .however case law has not yet decided whether being held in custody makes a person an 'accused ' person. . ." (Page 126).

In this Kafkaesque mode of thinking, anybody can be locked up without becoming an accused person and, since the person has not been accused, he or she will have none of the protections afforded by the human rights legislation or the protections already provided by our Common Law.

Thanks to David Rowlands for the above.

By the by, your "know this" section in your sidebar is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of British *and* European law. (Something I assume you've picked up from the Devil's Kitchen? DK and I have argued about this in pubs on occasion - he's still wrong.)

No not at all it is entirely, 100%, of my own accord. I am not a frequent visitor of the Devil's Kitchen having only learned about the site a couple of weeks ago (prior to the post in question being written).

First of all, the "Napoleonic" system that you claim to be so incompatible with the "British" is the same as that used in, erm... Scotland. We've had two different legal systems operating side-by-side for centuries with no problems.

Henceforth why we call it "English Common Law." Having desperately search my blog page several times I cannot find anywhere, precisely, that I claim that they are incompatible. I take offence at the way the Napoleonic system operates and oppose it being introduced in England, what they do in Scotland and France is of little concern to me as long as they do not bring it here. Again I will reemphasize; I never claimed that they were incompatible (at least not anywhere I can find, please point it out to me) I take issue with the way the system presents itself and operates.

Secondly, the "guilty until proven innocent" claim for the European system is a misunderstanding of an anachronism. Because *every single EU member state* is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The latter currently has opt-outs - the first two don't. Common to all three is a commitment to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare - that does not mean that it is non-lethal. What you claim is in direct contradiction to the way law is practised in France regardless of which treaties they have signed, remember most nation states only pay lip service to treaties they have signed. I am sure you would agree the rescent wars in Iraq and the current on in Afghanistan proves that if anything. Where British and Americans have been caught redhanded violating every single human rights treaties they signed since 1945. Ergo, just because they have signed something does not mean that they actually practise what they preach.

In the French system, the presumption of guilt licenses the judge to suppose that, regardless of whether the defendant is indeed in the wrong, something strange has been afoot worthy of further examination. What follows, then, is an exhaustive inquiry into the facts of the case, which continues until the judge feels that he has achieved an accurate understanding of what took place and can therefore subsume the case under the appropriate law. Indeed, the investigative powers of the judge are so extensive that he may freely suspend the rights of citizens (e.g., by wiretapping or opening their mail) in pursuit of crucial bits of evidence.

You say you don't have "enough judicial or constitutional knowledge to know by what authority our parliament has signed away our liberties" - well I do, and can tell you in detail, if you really want (short version: despite common assumptions, in Britain the people are not, nor ever have been sovereign - and parliament has no compulsion under the British constitution to act in the best interest of the people; it is this single fact about the way the British constitution works that confirmed me to be in favour of some form of European Union as a way of protecting us from the abuses of an over-strong government, much as we've experienced in the last 12 years).

The way you describe Britain it sounds as if we have been living under autocracy since the day of Walpole. Parliament may have no compulsion to act in the best interest of the people (sadly I am not going to take your word for and will double check this for it sounds dubious - at least the way in which you present it) that does not mean it has not done so until as recently as a couple of decades ago.

The irony of what you claim is well described by the oft held view in Brussels; that there was little that did as much for European integration than the attacks on WTC in 2001. That is to say terrorism is a means to their end, a tool which they use for scaremongering to force through drastic measures. I agree the British state under New Labour has done little to protect "An Englishman's home is his castle" but it is nowhere near as bad as the situation we will have if the EU gets full control of our lives.

In the meantime I suggest you pick up a copy of Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution" - over a century out of date but still a good starting point. You should be able to pick it up second-hand on Amazon for about £3. It'll be an invaluable investment, considering the focus of your blog - though you should probably think about getting Anthony King's more recent "The British Constitution" (OUP, 2007) to get yourself more up to date.

Thank you for those suggestions, I shall indeed get both.

Now Mr. Nosemonkey to your "friend", Tim:

Can I ask the right honourable gentleman Spitifre whether he has no way of voting for the EU nor for Regional Government?

If you do, how come you are signing away freedom to those institutions? Also, being from a land estranged of these isles, I am pretty certain that there are no countries in the EU where you are guilty until proven innocent, no matter how loud you say it here, it is not true.

Did not Mr. Nosemonkey who, I daresay, knows more about this issue than either of us demonstrate that Scotland goes by the Napoleonic system and you will find with a quick google search that so does France.

Tim I am going to assume you a fellow of lesser mental capabilities. Anyone who knows anything at all about the EU knows that the real power lies with the unelected Commission and the Council of Ministers. It was set up that way because, after the massive popularity of Nazism and Fascism, the post-war European elites decided that it was necessary to build institutions that restrain the will of the people rather than express it. In the long run, that's merely a more leisurely and scenic route back to where they came in. There is no "democratic deficit" since this is how it was designed.

So you see our little "democratic" exercise that comes around every 5 years is little but show for the EU parliament has little power. The commission is the only body which has the power to propose laws and if parliament disagrees and throws it out they can still bypass parliament should they so like, of course did would cause some uproar but it is not as if the EU cares about the democracy their treatment of Ireland and Denmark shows that if anything.

Constitutional Vandalism Part 2

Remember the The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the one dubbed "Constitutional Vandalism", by well everyone, except New Labour of course.

This is what it did (Wikipedia of course).

• Abolition of the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.
• Setting up of a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court.
• Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee.

Why was this done?

"The reform 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."

I will let the humble reader be the judge (notice the pun, aren't I funny?) as to why this system was to be changed when it delivered justice adequately for a good 800 years.

More and more pictures are starting to arrive from the MSM showing images of the courtrooms of the new Supreme court. Interestingly though they seem to have told the Queen to go and stuff herself with the creation of this new abomination at the price of 56 million pounds. Seems odd to scrap a system that is the envy of the rest of the world in favour of integration and conformity. The odd thing is that I think New Labour thinks (odd sentence) that when they are thrown out of office next year there wont be any consequences of their destruction of the UK.

Anyhow here is the emblem approved by the queen for the new Supreme Court (notice the St. Edwards Crown).This is what is actually found in the building...

Notice the distinct absence of anything even reminiscent of the monarchy (for the less attentive readers, what is missing from the emblem is the St. Edwards crown - the symbol of Crown Immunity, Liberty and Authority). For more pictures go here.

So much for Crown Prerogative.

What I find truly fascinating about this whole business is not the constant disestablishment of Britain under New Labours conductance but the naivety of its ministers. In years to come when we start to unravel the New Labour bombshell years they will have to face the nation in a court of law - be it the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. It has barely been a month since Jacqui Smith resigned from Gordon's cabinet and she is already being prosecuted. How long before Gordon is charged?

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Miliband et al. you will not get away with what you have done. You cannot stop justice being done, let alone a nation which is quite frankly pissed off at the lot of you for behaving so maliciously towards your own people who you are supposed to serve and protect.

As the current Home Secretary Alan Johnson said "I am not loosing sleep over rising immigration numbers." Trust me dear Mr. Johnson when you are truly out and gone of office, and the nation starts to recover from your disastrous time at its helm, you will loose sleep.

Addendum: Turns out this whole issue was rather more serious than I initially thought. I have mailed the relevant ministers of the government and in the shadow cabinet to see what they will do about it, or what is more likely to tell them that they actually have a Supreme Court now - I wonder if they even knew. Will post relevant replies from ministers when received.

The farce continues

Update: I can pleasantly tell you that I mailed the Ministry of Justice, The Conservative representatives and the New Labour representatives about my above concerns - three weeks ago. No one has replied to date, my guess is no one will.

Constitutional Vandalism

Remember the The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the one dubbed "Constitutional Vandalism", by well everyone, except New Labour of course.

This is what it did (Wikipedia of course).

• Abolition of the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.
• Setting up of a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court.
• Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee.

Why was this done?

"The reform 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."

I will let the humble reader be the judge (notice the pun, aren't I funny?) as to why this system was to be changed when it delivered justice adequately for a good 800 years.

More and more pictures are starting to arrive from the MSM showing images of the courtrooms of the new Supreme court. Interestingly though they seem to have told the Queen to go and stuff herself with the creation of this new abomination at the price of 56 million pounds. Seems odd to scrap a system that is the envy of the rest of the world in favour of integration and conformity. The odd thing is that I think New Labour thinks (odd sentence) that when they are thrown out of office next year there wont be any consequences of their destruction of the UK.

Anyhow here is the emblem approved by the queen for the new Supreme Court (notice the St. Edwards Crown).This is what is actually found in the building...

Notice the distinct absence of anything even reminiscent of the monarchy (for the less attentive readers, what is missing from the emblem is the St. Edwards crown - the symbol of Crown Immunity, Liberty and Authority). For more pictures go here.

So much for Crown Prerogative.

What I find truly fascinating about this whole business is not the constant disestablishment of Britain under New Labours conductance but the naivety of its ministers. In years to come when we start to unravel the New Labour bombshell years they will have to face the nation in a court of law - be it the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. It has barely been a month since Jacqui Smith resigned from Gordon's cabinet and she is already being prosecuted. How long before Gordon is charged?

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Miliband et al. you will not get away with what you have done. You cannot stop justice being done, let alone a nation which is quite frankly pissed off at the lot of you for behaving so maliciously towards your own people who you are supposed to serve and protect.

As the current Home Secretary Alan Johnson said "I am not loosing sleep over rising immigration numbers." Trust me dear Mr. Johnson when you are truly out and gone of office, and the nation starts to recover from your disastrous time at its helm, you will loose sleep.

Addendum: Turns out this whole issue was rather more serious than I initially thought. I have mailed the relevant ministers of the government and in the shadow cabinet to see what they will do about it, or what is more likely to tell them that they actually have a Supreme Court now - I wonder if they even knew. Will post relevant replies from ministers when received.

The farce continues

I just had to add this

Now I know this is very late out, most people have already talked and blogged about it but I still find it so very funny.

My response to Mrs. Blears is this: Try and stop us.

A few heres and a few theres

I picked this up from ConservativeHome, where a lovely little eurocract named 'Justin' posted this:

As a Conservative campaigner, (I am already working hard to get our London MEPs, headed by Charles Tannock, re-elected. Unlike Mr Helmer, I'll be focussing of the many positive aspects that membership of the EU brings to member states like Britain. Here's a recap of what they are:

Safer and Cheaper Flights

The EU has provided us with not only safer flights but also cheaper flights and increased competition between carriers registered in the Member States. Cheaper flights are the knock-on effect of a huge improvement in air traffic management and increased competition.

Student Exchange Programmes

Within the last 10 years the EU has created different education programmes in order to give students the possibility to experience different national cultures and broaden their personal horizon. Up to now 1.2 million students have benefited from the ERASMUS Programme and many more are expected to experience it in the future.

The Single Market

The Single Market is one of a kind as it guarantees ‘free movement' of people, goods, services and capital. At a practical level, it provides the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU, as well as enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services.

Protection of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property deals with two areas: industrial property and copyrights. Basically, it means that you are not allowed to use somebody else's ideas, for example, if your best friend has written lyrics to a song, you can not publish it in your name. The EU's efforts in this area have resulted in laws aiming at protecting company's or individual's knowledge.

Peace

Peace in Europe was first created when an alliance was made between Germany and France and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. Europe has come along way since with a lasting peace amongst its Member States. International security is now a major issue for the EU: with increasing threats to a peaceful society in different areas of the world, the EU has put in place many policies to combat such problems.

The Euro

The single currency, the Euro, is now part of our everyday life but not all of its benefits are well known. From the practical advantages of travelling with a single currency, to the benefits of economic growth, to the strengthening of the EU international role and its political integration, the introduction of the euro has achieved much more than people expected.

Regional Funds

Unity and solidarity are some of the most significant aims for the EU. One important reason why the European regional policies have been created is because the EU is of the opinion that equal standards and rights should be provided to all citizens.

Cheaper and Better Phone calls

The liberalisation of the telecommunication markets in 1998 and the ongoing development in the field of technology have resulted in a steady decrease in prices within the EU. This means that it is cheaper to call your friends and family and choose between different operators.

Consumer Protection

NEW: Consumer protection and the safety of food in the European Union are two issues that have always gone hand in hand. The Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General's main responsibility is to provide laws and regulations on the safety of food and consumer rights.

A Healthier Europe

The public health issues dealt with by the EU are numerous and cover a number of different areas. They concern both men and women, young and old. The EU has also introduced the European health insurance card that is your guarantee if you should fall ill when going abroad.

Environmental Protection

In the EU, environmental issues including initiatives concerning protection have been underlined as some of the most important points not only for discussion but also for action. For instance, the EU is leading the "Kyoto" drive to reduce the air pollution that causes global warming.

Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination

The promotion of equal opportunities and the fight against Discrimination are considered some of the most important issues within Europe and many directives have been put in place to combat inequalities that occur in the Member States. 2007 is officially the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. Additionally the "Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010" was launched outlining 6 priority areas for EU action on gender equality.

External Trade

External trade for Europe has always been very important to the success of the European Union. In recent years our level of trade has increased and we are continuing to grow as major players in the world of trade. Today, the EU accounts for 20% of global imports and exports and is now the world's biggest trader.

This is what he got in reply which is equally entertaining:

For Justin

Safer and Cheaper Flights
Could have been achieved with a open skies treaty. The EU has been dragging its heels over such a treaty with the USA.
Student Exchange Programmes
Why should the majority care. Erasmus is a programme to promote the EU
The Single Market
Not the same as free trade, brings a huge mass of regulation and stops free trade with non EU countries.
Protection of Intellectual Property
We didn’t have laws on that before? News to me. No doubt when China joins the EU, the real problem will be solved.
Peace
Without the EU the Belgians would no doubt have invaded Bulgaria. NATO and the cold war are irrelevant?
The Euro
Screwed Ireland and Spain by inflating the bubble, so led to a bigger bust. Is creating huge dislocations today because countries are not able to devalue.
Regional Funds
Taking our cash, spending half of it here, and demanding we be grateful for it.
Cheaper and Better Phone calls
We led the way in liberalisation, not the EU
Consumer Protection
Presumably before hand, we were all dying of food poisoning. Much of this regulation is just protectionism, and the rest we could have done ourselves anyway.
A Healthier Europe
EU restrictions on working hours led to a shortage of doctors in our hospitals.
Environmental Protection
You are joking right? The CFP has completely denuded our seas of fish. CAP has led to over use of fertiliser and loss of habitat. EU countries talk a great game on CO2, whilst subsidising coal miners.
Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination
Feminist activism on a continental scale. Men cannot get a beter deal on life insurance despite dying earlier, women on car insurance despite being more careful drivers.
External Trade
They stop it. They screw the poorest in the world with agricultural tariffs.

The EU is essentially an anti freedom organisation. Unfortunately only the cost message will bear fruit though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Justin....The facts:
By 2008 Britain will have made total contributions to the European Community (EC) Budget of £230.4 billion gross or almost £68.2 billion net.
By the end of the current EC budget period Britain will have made estimated total contributions to the EC Budget of £315.4 billion gross and £101.4 billion net.
By 2007 Britain had an accumulated trade deficit with the other EU member states of £383.7 billion.
The Common Agricultural Policy costs Britain at least £16.8 billion per annum.
The Common Fisheries Policy costs Britain at least £3.275 billion per annum.
Over-regulation on business costs Britain at least £28 billion per annum.
In 2008 membership of the European Union costs Britain almost £65.675 billion per annum gross or almost £55.775 billion per annum net.
GDP is £1,459 billion. Tax:GDP ratio is 36.8% (excluding Council Tax which is fixed). Therefore 2% more GDP would be approximately £10.73 billion more tax every year.
Source: 2008 Budget Report

£14.6 billion would enable the basic rate of income tax to be cut by 3.65 pence. It would alternatively enable the Personal Allowance to be increased by £2,703, so that you would earn £2,700 more than you currently do before paying tax - taking millions of lower paid workers out of charge.

The combined benefit of £10.73 billion more tax revenues and saving the £14.6 billion paid to the EU would enable the basic rate of income tax to be cut by 6.23p, or increase the personal allowance by £4,685.
Source for calculations: HMRC Ready Reckoner for 2007-08

This is my contribution:

I find that it must be much to the detriment of the EU that all their ad hoc arguments about their relevance can be so easily derided on an online comment section where we can assume that the majority of people are not politicians nor judicial people with extensive knowledge of institutional law of the EU as well as the indigenous workings of the nomenclature of law in the UK (not to mention that people are just that ordinary people who can spot the cracks in the EU bubble without them even trying very hard.)

We want a loose trade agreement with the EU. That is it. You can only ignore the people so longe before they do something wholly undemocratic - this will be to the detriment of the EU not the UK.