British Politicians, the small print and the EU

There is no point in me writing a post on this myself, Mary Riddell has done a fine job of that already.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, rhubarb, rhubarb, order in the House, 'physically ill' and the rest of it. All I can say to the Commons over this votes for prisoners dispute is: just shut up and pull the trigger and get out of the Council of Europe. Or admit you are too timid to pull the trigger, so shut up anyway and submit in the manner that suits men who are cowards.

This noise about how Britain may now stand against to the council's European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is at best naive and in most cases (yes, you, David Cameron) is synthetic. What Cameron has done on this one is pretend this is the crucial line he won't cross. Meanwhile, very much more quietly and apparently without a moment of squeamishness (odd that, how selective the prime minister's stomach is on parliamentary sovereignty), his Government hands over more and more power to the European Union.

What he has done by stirring up this prisoners' votes business is simply give the euro-anxious Tories a different kind of 'European' bone on which to chew. Yet this issue is not the meat. The ECHR and its decisions are not the things most endangering Britain's sovereignty now.

Still, if MPs are really so determined to stop this so-called 'encroachment' by Strasbourg, maybe a technical note first. Britain freely (and foolishly) agreed long ago to give the court at Strasbourg all the powers that the ECHR has since been using. This so-called 'court' at has never invaded Britain -- the supine British opened the gates to all these European 'justices' and their powers to decide Britain's laws.

The angry cries, even among my colleagues, that there has been 'remorseless undermining' of Britain's parliament and courts implies that the ECHR has been tunnelling away under the stone walls of Britain, rather in the manner of medieval seige warfare. It hasn't. The ECHR has done only and exactly what decades of euro-supine British politicians have allowed it to do. The drawbridge has been down all along, with 'We are all Europeans now' written on cloth-of-gold and slung from the battlements.

All parliament has to do if it really does want to stop the powers of this 'court' is just vote to pull out of the Council of Europe, ECHR and all. Then this absurdity of votes for prisoners, and every other ECHR so-called 'human rights' absurdity, goes away; or at least -- and this is what Cameron is hiding in this debate -- until Brussels reminds the United Kingdom that by signing up to Lisbon Treaty and the rest, powers across the Channel can go on imposing these 'human rights' on Britain whether the UK tries to derogate from the ECHR decisions or leaves the Council of Europe altogether.

Cameron, being so very busy having a public relations-designed 'physcal illness' over the issue, won't admit that the problem with exactly this kind of control by foreign powers over Britain's legislation will continue as long as Britain stays in the EU: even if Britain now refuses votes for prisoners -- and it won't; in the end, some man caught with 10,000 child porn images on his laptop will have the liberty to cancel out your vote -- ultimately the EU will have ways of getting the same decision reached in the European Court of Justice (the EU 'court,' this one in Luxembourg with the power to enforce EU law in member states). All that will be necessary is for some other ex-con lowlife to bring another case, this time in Luxembourg not Strasbourg.

The Lisbon Treaty, among many other poisonous things, gave the EU 'legal personality' for the first time. That means it can sign international agreements, not as an agent for a group of 27 sovereign states, but as a state in its own right. And as this new country called Europe, it is going to join the Council of Europe. It will be a member just as the United Kingdom is now.

What that means is that Britain, even if it pulls out of the Council of Europe, will still be bound to the damned thing as a part of the EU: remember, Lisbon made us all 'citizens of the EU' now. If you are a native of England, Scotland Wales or Ireland, your nationality is now 'European' whether you want it or not. The treaty says so, and the treaty, thanks to the refusal by Cameron and William Hague to fight it, is law.

Treaties and other international agreements now signed by the EU will be directly binding on the UK and have primacy over all UK laws and the British constitution. And, no, Britain does not have a veto over most of the things the EU might sign treaties on.

Slightly delicious note: I gather the EU's signing for the membership has been held up because the EU is demanding that decisions of the ECHR cannot over-rule the decisions of the ECJ. In other words, Brussels is demanding that its own court have supremacy over the ECHR, something Britain has surrendered for its own Supreme Court.

So there could be turf conflicts between the euro-courts. As Open Europe notes in its briefing this week on the votes for prisoners dispute, the EU has its own catalogue of justiciable rights -- '' 'the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. The Charter allows citizens to contest rights set down in EU law at the European Court of Justice, and, in future, possibly also the ECHR (when the EU accedes to it).'

This will make it 'increasingly difficult for the UK to negotiate a carve-out from European human rights legislation.'

As for the detail of this particular case of prisoners' votes, 'Withdrawal from the ECHR would allow the UK to ignore ECHR rulings on prisoners votes when it come to general elections. However, as voting rights in European Parliament and local elections are covered by EU law as well as national law, their application in the UK could in future be challenged at the ECHR or the ECJ.'

Oh, and as for the Cameron fudge about limiting the vote to prisoners serving four years or less, the ECHR has already struck down that notion in a similar case, Scoppola v Italy. It decided that the prisoner's rights were violated because Italian law barred him from voting on the basis of his sentence. So they will knock down Cameron's four years, too, and I'd suspect he knows it.

Which is why the noise in the Commons over this is just noise. Either parliament is sovereign or it's not, and until the MPs vote to take Britain out of the EU, it's not: the 'legal personality' called the 'European Union' is sovereign.

So the MPs might as well go home; or go around to the 'Scrubs for a bit of canvassing.

...And back to me. Peter Oborne has this funny statement on his blog

But it just isn’t going to happen. Even if he launched on this kamikaze mission, he wouldn’t complete it. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has already advised Downing Street that banning votes for prisoners is illegal. I guess he would resign, along with Ken Clarke. I am told that most of the supreme court judges would follow Clarke out of the door, launching Britain into a full-scale constitutional crisis. Not only that, Nick Clegg, who has been strangely silent on all this, would walk out of the Coalition.

Who cares if Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and the Supreme Court judges walk out? They are doing so on their principles not ours and they are supposed to represent us and our parliament. It is not a constitutional crisis when the people that walk out have no support form the electorate anyway. If they had the support of voters and truly trumpeted the vox populi, the story would be different. Hence I cannot see where this "constitutional crisis" would be coming from, simply because no one would care and a few would cheer.

Hung Parliament and Proportional Representation Maths

I am going to do some maths now with regards to the voting system know as Proportional Representation. Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive (e.g., in legislative assemblies).

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Beware what you set your heart upon. For it shall surely be yours." I am just not sure the Lib Dems are aware of this nor anyone else for that matter.

Consider the election results in the European Election. Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate. Which means first of all that no one gave a shit since it was such a profoundly pointless election anyway, more like elected dictatorship.

Conservative, votes received: 4,198,394
UKIP, votes received: 2,498,226
Labour, votes received: 2,381,760
Liberal Democrat, votes received: 2,080,613
Green, votes received: 1,223,303
BNP, votes received: 943,598
SNP, votes received: 321,007
Plaid Cymru, votes received: 126,702

Anyhow, 15,136,932 people turned out and that will form our main body from which the proportional system is based. If PR were used in a national election then a higher turnout would be expected somewhere around 30 million perhaps. But I want to demonstrate what would happen if the above number of voters in the EU Parliament election, were used for Westminster elections.

There are 646 seats in the British Parliament in Westminster.

The maths is trivial: Take the number of votes received per party, divide this by the total number of votes cast and take this number times the number of seats available i.e. 646. Then this is what would happen:

Conservative, seats received: 179
UKIP, seats received: 107
Labour, seats received: 102
Liberal Democrat, seats received: 89
Green, seats received: 52
BNP, seats received: 40
SNP, seats received: 14
Plaid Cymru, seats received: 5

Only the most naive and arrogant political pundit or mandarin would suggest that these results could never happen. This is politics, nothing is certain, who thought that arch-mongrel Nick Clegg would actually have a real shot at Nr 10 a few weeks ago? And this is the fundamental message of this exercise, if you adopt PR you will truly adopt elected dictatorship and the UK will most likely follow in the steps of every other major European nation: revolution, death, war and finally a shit coalition government to sort the mess out. The BNP would get 40 MPs for heavens sake! What is more, the LibDems love the EU yet the do not seem to realise that adopting PR might actually results in the UK leaving the EU. You might wonder then why I am so against the PR if it aids the UK leaving the EU, simple: I want to leave on the strength of argument not simple human shortcomings reflected in the PR system. I want to convince people, make them see and believe that the EU is a very very dangerous concept which does control our lives to a very high degree. If you convince by argument, reason and debate you win, if you do it with a hodgepodge coalition government who gave the people a say on the EU because of political advantage - that is not fair play. I do not care what the current political class or what the current 'Political Science' Degree tells its students; always country before party, those are my principles. Always.

The UK was taken into the EU on a lie, lets take her out on the truth.

Just because the establishment is drenched in dirty politics does not mean that we have to be; raising the bar is no particularly hard seeing as it is set so low already. Perhaps I am just a sucker for historical poetic justice but somehow I think it is wrong to change the constitutional settings for short term political gain. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

However, we do get the final say on PR. The cattle are yet again queuing up to get whacked. Funny how they always fall for the same lame old story: the farmer just pretends that they’re going on a little trip to pastures new where everything is nice and sunny and lovely and the grass is greener etc. Today we have the politicos herding the bovines into the same old queue with the same old yarn and telling them that the politics is greener on far yonder hill, in the next valley, over the hill, just beyond the rainbow, round the bend.

Changing the system is the easy way to out, taking responsibility for their actions is not, clearly why no one is offering that platform.

By the by, you do not have to be a Ladbrokes Mathematician, with a PhD in statistics to work this out; I did it with Excel at 2AM in the morning.

Our finest hour

...was in 1689 but by God was it a fine hour indeed:

English Bill of Rights 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

So much for English Common Law ... as usual the EU is not mentioned once

The divergence of Britain from the Continent can be traced to Bonaparte's greatest victory 200 years ago. In Book III of "War and Peace" that Tolstoy memorably describes the Battle of Austerlitz — "the battle of the three emperors." This was the greatest victory of Napoleon Bonaparte's career. At the time, it seemed far more important than his navy's defeat at Trafalgar two months before. By routing the combined armies of Austria and Russia, Austerlitz enabled Napoleon literally to redraw the map of Europe, conjuring up a new Confederation of the Rhine from the Baltic to the Alps.

Moreover, by obliging the Austrian Emperor Francis to renounce the title of Holy Roman Emperor, Napoleon snuffed out an institution that had been at the heart of Europe for more than a millennium.

Napoleon's idea of Europe was double-edged. On the one hand, he overthrew decadent dynasties such as the Bourbons of Naples and established what was to become the model for Continental legal systems, the Code Napoléon. Later, in exile, he claimed that he had "wished to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary" so that "there would be one people in Europe." Yet, at the same time, Napoleonic Europe was without question an authoritarian empire.

What finally killed Napoleon's Europe was the fatal combination of the English Channel and the Russian winter. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to restore the old pre-Napoleonic Europe.

Napoleon fell; Bonapartism lived on, with the civil code and economic dirigisme as perhaps its most enduring legacies. Now it is back in the UK backed and imposed by the EU as usual (that is one of the 'minor' consequences, one of the footnotes, of signing the Lisbon Treaty), and as usual not a word is being said about this in the newspaper. Not a single 'EU' is mentioned in relation to uprooting of English Common Law. What to say? It is again one of those where you are completely at loss for words. Think back at the greatest men of our history and ponder what they might have replied on stumbling upon this revelation; that the corner stone of England is being chucked out just like that. It should be said that I strongly disagree with Mr. Berlins who wrote this post on the issue over at the Guardian. I will echo instead what Fausty said on the subject.

An illustration of the difference between Common Law and the Code can be seen in the understanding of "Rights." In the Anglosphere, there are a core set that pre-date the existence of the civil power and cannot be diminished by it (Jefferson's "Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness.") The Code acknowledges no rights save those spelled out in the Code itself. Rights are thus a creature of the Code and therefore malleable by whoever has the power to amend the Code.

In Common Law you are assumed innocent until the state proves you guilty. In the Code you are presumed guilty until you have proven otherwise.

Ask yourself this; what is more important £6 million or a man's freedom? They are of course claiming that this is done to save money, their primary argument - to have the audacity to even suggest that money is an issue it outrageous. It is the responsibility of the state to prove that one or more of its subjects have acted outsides the confines of the law and failing to do so the subjects must be set free. Furthermore if the confines of the law are not adequate then the laws are changed for better implementation by elected representatives of the people, not the practise of law. You know of course where this will lead, more cases will use the Code under the guise of "cost savings" and hey presto our freedoms are set in stone - that in itself is a contradiction, an oxymoron of colossal importance. Freedom is a liberty, we are born free, if you write down that it is a freedom to be born free then it is not a freedom anymore. You have defined what the concept means, you are introducing guidelines and rules for the implementation of the word and then you make it into a law and a law is a rule which prevents freedom. The more laws the less justice, and the primary purpose of the Code is to ensnare and trap our freedom.

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.