« BBC montage of Election Night programmes through the years | Main | The CWU confirms that the postal strike is on »

October 17, 2009

Comments

Tapestry

this is not 'our history'.

this is the EU's history.

It is not a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

It is a junior court of the ECJ.

Brown and Straw look bored and fed up.

This is the ending of Britain's independent judicial existence, the termination of the common law in Britain, which we gave to the world, and which lasted 1000 years.

This is the triumph not of justice, but of EU bureaucratisation, and it's met with a big yawn by our traiterous Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, Brown and Straw.

The paedophiles can now take over Britain. The old be sent off to their final euthanasia, and no government or judge will ever be thrown out, no matter how many lives they destroy from their inhuman judgments.

The powerful are now beyond our reach.

George Orwell saw it all coming.

The faces in this video tell us that our joyless totalitarian future is now here.

Will East

I think people need to think about whether the empty assumptions they keep repeating are really true or not. I am a lawyer and follow the Supreme Court closely and I can tell you that hardly any of the cases which reach the court and reached the House of Lords previously involve giving precedence to European Law/ making a reference on European law to the ECJ.

It is laughable to say that the common law has been terminated - in fact the common law principle of legality was recently strongly argued as a reason for overturning the orders for freezing terrorists' assets in A and others v HM Treasury.

There is a legitimate debate over whether we should be in the EU and whether our law should be in conformity with EU law, but the debate should be based on fact and not the assertion of blind ignorance above.

Dror Ben-Ari

Thanks Will. As a trainee solicitor myself, with some experience in employment law, I've had to make significant use of legislation resulting from EU Directives - and have been consistently impressed by their quality (the statutory grievance/disciplinary procedures notwithstanding - although I forget whether these result from EU Directives or not).

Too often, particularly in the field of equality legislation, we're playing 'catch up' with European Law.

As for Tapestry, his arguments are typical of UKIP. There's almost no point in arguing with them based upon fact.

Tapestry

“But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back…”

Lord Denning MR
H.P. Bulmer Ltd v Bollinger S.A. [1974] Ch. 401 at 418

Tapestry

We already have a supreme court. It is called the European Court of Justice and it is based in Luxembourg. If the Trade Descriptions Act could be brought to apply to Jack Straw, the progenitor of the pretend supreme court in London, a conviction would most certainly be secured.

www.eureferendum.blogspot.com

Will East

Tapestry I think you mistake Denning's colourful language for a political point. All he is saying is that in matters within the scope of the treaty, European law is supreme. Ironically the full quote from the paragraph (you quote selectively) shows that it is far from the truth that we no longer have the common law as a result of entering the EU:

"The first and fundamental point is that the Treaty concerns only those matters which have a European element, that is to say, matters which affect people or property in the nine countries of the common market besides ourselves. The Treaty does not touch any of the matters which concern solely England and the people in it. These are still governed by English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back, Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute. The governing provision is section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972."

The second point is that it was Parliament that enacted the supremacy of European law. It is wrong to suggest that this was something that 'European bureaucrats' arrogated to themselves.

Tapestry

From the Wall Street Journal -

Parliamentary Svereignty Under Attack

The danger is that you muck around with a constitution like the British Constitution at your peril, because you do not know what the consequences of any change will be," said former law lord David Neuberger in a recent interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.

Lord Neuberger was recently appointed Master of the Rolls (head of the Court Of Appeal - as Lord Denning above), one of the most senior judges in the U.K.

A point of particular sensitivity is the prospect that the new top court will trump the role of legislators --

I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed that the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is under attack (from the EU), or that the term 'Supreme Court' is an elaborate deception (Dr Richard North).

I am not UKIP. I support David Cameron.

Will East

This is rather tiresome. Lord Neuberger's comments had nothing to do with the supremacy of EU law. That was granted by Act of Parliament in 1972, not by the courts. As you well know the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that in general the courts cannot simply refuse to implement Acts of Parliament. They have to implement them.

What Lord Neuberger was concerned about was the potential for further clashes between the judiciary and executive as a result of the creation of the Supreme Court. If that is the concern then it should demonstrate that like the Law Lords, the Supreme Court will not be an ineffectual talking shop but a body that is willing to stand up to the Government where appropriate.

Personally, however, I don't think that the establishment of the new court will represent much change. The judges are almost exactly the same, the jurisdiction is the same, and the substantive law is the same.

Tapestry

The second point is that it was Parliament that enacted the supremacy of European law. It is wrong to suggest that this was something that 'European bureaucrats' arrogated to themselves.

So now you say that European Law does have supremacy. We agree on that.

The Parliament that ratified the Lisbon/Constitutional Treaty was elected (almost) entirely on the basis of every MP standing with a manifesto commitment to hold a national referendum prior to ratification.

That referendum was not held.

Lisbon is the EU Constitution.

This was an electoral fraud which should result in the British Lisbon Referendum being made invalid.

Let's hope Cameron finds a way.

And on every MP who defrauded his/her Constituents by breaching their manifesto commitment, being dismissed by his/her Constituents.

The lawyers don't want to say boo to a goose of course. EU power and money now talk, where British freedom once walked.

The judiciary needs bringing to heel, and Parliamentary Sovereignty reestablished.

Cameron talks of localisation, but without Parliamentary Sovereignty reestablished, EU power and the machinations of compliant collaborator judges will prevent him.

Will East

I've agreed all along that EU law has supremacy ! What I disagreed with is that the common law has been 'terminated' - as I said the vast majority of cases that get to the UK Supreme Court have nothing to do with EU law.

Will East

On your other points, I agree re. a referendum - people should be given a say just as they were when we entered the EU.

However, I don't know on what basis you say the 'judiciary needs bringing to heel'.

Ben Stevenson

I like the last line in this video about the judiciary being seen to be independent of the legislature. I would also support separating the executive from the legislature. Basically, I support copying America (except keep the monarchy).

I think we should leave the EU, but I couldn't care whether the Supreme Court was the idea of the EU or not - it is a move I support.

Riddi of England

This is becoming insouciant not to say rather tiresome.

East you say
...the vast majority that get to the UK supreme court...
and pray what of those those that do NOT ?
One day soon may the curse of the EAW European Arrest Warrant visit your door courtesy of an armed itinerant gendarme of Europol.
Be advised you have no right of Appeal in the uk.

Your protective custody/stay in for example Bulgaria for certainly 12 to 24 months will be singularly memorable and painful but your alleged offence will not be... only an allegation against you is needed.

Upon your return home to a personal wasteland you may care to ruminate on the flippancy of your elliptical musings.

Tapestry

as I said the vast majority of cases that get to the UK Supreme Court have nothing to do with EU law...???

Not open yet. or rather just open. so which cases are these?

The judiciary needs bringing to heel to stop activist judges such as the gentleman (Sweeney?) who stopped the Guardian from publishing Parlimentary proceedings concerning the Trafigura case.

The Sovereignty of Parliament requires Parliament to assert itself over the Executive and the Judiciary and show who's the boss round these parts.

It's all rapped up with whether Cameron will come out strongly enough to reassert the Sovereignty of Parliament or not.

Parliament derives its power through a relationship of trust between it and the people. The Parties have defrauded the electorate by signing Lisbon after the 2005 election manifestos all of which promised a referendum.

Until that fraud is corrected, the issue is not settled.

If Klaus hasn't signed, then a referendum on Lisbon can be held.

If it has been signed by Klaus, then a referendum on the whole EU relationship becomes inevitable.

Before we accept that we are a new state called the EU, we the people have to be consulted.

Or there will be serious troubles in Britain, with retention of taxes, the potential for violence and other disruption, and bitter hatreds and resentment which should not be allowed to grow.

ניתוח טכני

The first and essential factor is that the agreement issues only those issues which have a Western factor, that is to say, issues which impact individuals or residence in the nine nations around the world of the typical industry besides ourselves.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Homepage

Categories

Options

Most Updated

Other Pages

Tracker

  • Extreme Tracking