Making Perry?

Autonomous Mind posts on the alleged spat twixt Claire Perry and Douglas Carswell, as reported in the Mail on Sunday. For the record, the question Carswell asked was during Prime Ministers Questions, when Nick Clegg deputised for David Cameron who was otherwise engaged on a jaunt to visit Obama. Having viewed this exchange on Parliament TV (starts 12:28:55) unfortunately some numpty stands up in front of Perry so it is not possible to see what happened.


Even allowing for the fact that some would say that the present Conservative Party is far from what is traditionally held to be a Conservative Party, Carswell is still taking the party whip and presenting himself to the public and his electorate as a Conservative MP. I find it strange that an MP who is so 'distant' in his beliefs when comparing those beliefs with that of his party still remains within that party; which leads to the belief that his political principles and beliefs are not as strong as his desire to continue his career - and so on balance I am the same opinion as Autonomous Mind.


Whilst I, too, have been critical of Carswell on my blog, if one is to criticise him of faux euroscepticism, then the same accusation must be made to Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Christopher Heaton-Harris and others, in which of the latter I of course include Daniel Hannan. Where I believe Carswell lays himself open to criticism is that bearing in mind his authorship, with Daniel Hannan, of "The Plan", those aspects of their tome that Cameron has embraced has been done with what one might call 'lip-service' in that that which Carswell and Hannan believe is far distant to that which Cameron will be implementing.


What is at the heart of this matter is principle and honour, not just in their support of the party under whose name they sail, but also when considering how they campaigned during a general election. From the moment David Cameron was elected Leader it was obvious that he was not the eurosceptic that he presented himself as, a position that has hardened as time has gone by. I have to admit that I do not know how they conducted their election campaigns, but pound to a penny those campaigns were run according to the Conservative Party manifesto with a wish on their part not to 'rock the boat' in the hope that a Conservative majority would be achieved. In that regard, one wonders how often during campaign speeches and canvassing they broached the subject of this country's EU membership without it being raised by those to whom they were addressing. If I am incorrect on that suggestion then obviously I offer an unreserved apology. In fairness, it may well be that they too were misled by a manifesto which promised re-call of MPs, local referenda, etc, etc.


What the subject of Carswell's, and others, position raises is doubt about their political principles and honour and reinforces the belief held by many that MPs - of all parties it must be said - are more concerned about their careers, even if they do not wish for ministerial promotion. If one holds firm political principles then where is the personal honour in remaining a member of a party who plainly does not espouse those same principles? It is accepted that membership of a party cannot mean that one agrees with every policy that that party promotes, but in the case of Carswell and Hannan they are both so diametrically opposed the question of why they remain in the Conservative Party has to be repeated.


Claire Perry's alleged suggestion may well be supported by some, both in Parliament and amongst the public and they may well point to the case of Roger Helmer who did indeed 'jump ship', although in the case of the latter I believe there were other reasons - for example, with his stated intention not to stand again coupled with his inability to have his favoured candidate take his place, was he motivated to proverbially stick two fingers up to Cameron and Warsi?


Knowing my preference for Direct Democracy, there may be critics who will argue that the same shenanigans would occur, which they may well do; however because those matters for which national politicians would be responsible for would be greatly reduced, so would the possibility for differences of opinion on policy.


Just a few thoughts on the Perry/Caswell matter offered for further discussion.........

Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

The Falklands can have self-determination, but we in the UK can't!

Readers may not be aware but yesterday, during David Cameron's jolly in the US he took time out to do a Q&A session with students and professors at the New York University. This session was transmitted live and Number 10 have been extremely helpful by posting a video of this event.


A question was raised by an American lady who is married to an Argentinian and she asked whether she should prepare for another split in her family over the Falklands issue. (Question starts at 45:40). David Cameron's response included the following:

"......people living somewhere should have the right to determine what country they are part of, who governs them......."

If Cameron believes that the people of the Falklands should have the right of self-determination - which is how he summed up the Falklands question - then should not the people of the United Kingdom have that same right of self-determination to decide what country they are part of and who governs them?


The man who masquerades as our Prime Minister and goes by the name of David Cameron a bloody hypocrite! 

David Cameron - Liar

I post the last Conservative Party Political Broadcast, that of 7th March 2012:

Prior to playing that video let us rewind a few years. At the time of the Conservative Party Leadership election, David Cameron debated with David Davis at the Exeter hustings and witnesses report that Cameron stated that if elected as leader, he promised to take the Conservative MEPs out of the clutches of Hans-Gert Poettering and his EPP/ED group in the European Parliament, not within days, not within months but within weeks. A promise broken. He also promised a "cast iron" commitment to give the country a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. A promise broken. He assured all members of the Countryside Alliance that, if they campaigned for the Conservative Party at the General Election, he would repeal the Hunting Act. A promise broken.

Now play the video. He promised to give electors the right to sack MPs who do wrong and claims he has - he hasn't. A broken promise. He states it is important that politicians are judged on whether they keep their promises - he hasn't. A broken promise. He states that he believes people want to see a government on their side - we don't want to see a government on our side, we want to see a government that does that which people want! He states he wants to care for those in need, yet cuts funding to those in need at the expense of 7% of GDP being used to fund foreigners in need. A broken promise. He states he wants to stop people 'taking out when they have no intention of putting back in' - a broken promise. Abu Qatada?

Some may say that it is unfair accusing David Cameron of breaking promises and that is, to a certain extent, true as all politicians break promises they make - one has only to look at the record of the last government. But Cameron is the 'politician du jour', he is the Prime Minister, he is the one talking about keeping promises - but he lies or, in parliamentary terms, he is being economical with the actualité. But then, aren't all politicians?

That our politicians (in general) are classified as members of a 'coven', one comprised of liars and cheats, it can be safely assumed therefore that their wives and husbands are in agreement with the remark of Jane Clark (husband of Alan Clark) who remarked: "what do you expect when you sleep with below stairs types?"

At cross purposes?

Today the Prime Minister and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles have both backed the right of Christians to wear crosses at work and in fact the Prime Minister's official spokesman also said today: "The Prime Minister’s personal view is that people should be able to wear crosses."


The Mail reports on Lynne Featherstone's instruction to Government lawyers to call on European human rights judges to dismiss the claims of Christian workers who have been banned from displaying the symbol of their faith at work.


My first reaction on reading those two news items was: Jesus! Accepting that there are, no doubt, among the readership of this blog those who may take offence at blasphemy, I will content myself to observing: Don't you just love to see joined-up government in action?


Afterthought: Or is the Communities Secretary and the Equalities Minister entering the spice business with a new line: Piccalillynne?

And who asked us?

Benedict Brogan writes in the Telegraph that the forthcoming Budget holds dangers for both Cameron and Osborne.

"The Coalition’s most senior figures are debating in public how to take money off the taxpayer...." 

And where exactly was it asked whether taxpayers agreed to this? 'Referism'?

".....after the politicians agreed to get it done before the Prime Minister and the Chancellor visit Washington next week for talks with Barack Obama."

And we agreed to the expenditure of public money on their air fares and other travel expenses, when?

"......has exposed deep divisions among Conservatives over the kind of party they want to be....."

Why - and how - can any political party seek a mandate from the electorate if they haven't decided that already?

"......this debate is driven by the forces of circumstance bearing down from all sides on the Conservatives..."

Following on from the preceding point, if political parties are 'driven' by forces of circumstance then they have no principles nor mandate.

"For a start, they have no majority and – in Mr Cameron’s eyes at least – are obliged to give room to the demands of the weakened Lib Dems as the price of keeping the Coalition together."

So, the majority party and their leader are prepared to forgo political principles in order to simply retain their hold on power and the privileges that that entails - and to hell with what is best for their country?

"The Chancellor is a natural showman........."

We dont want, or need, 'showman' - we need politicians!

"But he has been tempted by a Lib Dem offer – made explicit in recent days by Mr Clegg – to trade a reduction in the 50p rate (by how much is unclear but possibly to 45p) for a new mansion tax....."

So, the economic future of the country now depends on two parties forming a coalition, negotiating over a policy on which the public have no say, in order to continue exercising the reins of power?


Need I continue? The remainder of Brogan's article just illustrates that where the future of our country is concerned, be that economic or otherwise, matters not to our political elite - all that they are concerned with is retaining power and to hell with those that they are meant to serve.


Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of direct democracy vs representative democracy? Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of a form of democracy that negates all the foregoing shenanigans that passes for our present system? Can we now have a serious debate about a system that reverses the present situation whereby the politicians are in charge and the people are their servants? Can we now have a debate that brings a little common sense to the subject of how we wish our country to proceed?


Just asking................

Democracy

Apropos my last post and from Fraser Nelson's article on the Coffee House, one section leaped out, one which I believe is important where the question of democracy is concerned.

"His relationship with Cameron is quite unique: they are best friends, they formed their political opinions together and will always stay in touch. As Michael Gove once told me‘it's hard to know where Steve ends and David begins."

If the comment by Gove is correct, then one has to ask who had we as Prime Minister - Cameron or Hilton? Who preceded Cameron/Hilton - was that Gordon Brown or Damian McBride? Who was Prime Minister before Brown; Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell or Jonathon Powell?


Neither Hilton, McBride, Campbell nor Powell were elected by the people, neither did the people have any voice in their appointment - yet the people are expected, one way or another, to provide their salaries. That is democracy? No, that is one aspect of the democratised dictatorship under which we presently live.

Now, were we to have direct democracy and 'referism'.....................


Just saying.................

The 'dark' secrets of devolution?

A Freedom of Information request, which had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998, has been turned down by Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General on the grounds that release would not be in the public interest to release the papers because it would undermine the operation of Government. Digressing slightly, it appears that there is now a move to charge for FOI requests; a report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice has been submitted to the Justice Select Committee found that the number of requests had risen by 25% each year and are being seen as a drain on resources. This rather makes a mockery of the promise contained in the Coalition Programme for Government (page 11):

"We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency".

It is necessary to return to the days of the Brown Government and the year 2007, when on 28th June Gordon Brown appointed Regional Ministers. When the Coalition was formed the Prime Minister's Spokesman was asked on 17 May 2010 if Regional Ministers had been scrapped. He said that the process of completing appointments to the Government was continuing, and that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, "had been very clear on the importance of devolution". On 4 June 2010 the Evening Standard reported that the post of Minister for London had been scrapped. No formal announcements were made in relation to regional ministers, but I believe it correct to say there has been no announcements of any similar appointments by region. However Greg Clark was appointed as a Minister of Cities in July and according to the report on Conservative Home Clark will initially focus on the so-called 'Core Cities' outside of London; Birmingham (West Midlands - UKG), Bristol (South West - UKK), Leeds, Sheffield (Yorkshire and the Humber - UKE), Liverpool, Manchester (North West - UKD), Newcastle (North East - UKC) and Nottingham (East Midlands - UKF). That takes care of 6 of the 9 English regions, those omitted being London (UKI), the South East (UKJ) and East of England (UKH). (Note that I have added the Eurostat NUTS nomenclature for each region at Level 1).

Leading up to point of this post it is necessary that we consider two further links; the Committee of the Regions - from which we learn their raison d'être - and a most illuminating post from Ian Parker-Joseph (IPJonPolitics) to which I linked here.

With the appointment of Greg Clark it is obvious that the regionalisation of England is still 'alive and kicking' - it is also obvious, I maintain, that the reason for Grieve to veto the release of the papers in question is due to the fact it would show too much of the 'elephant in the room', which would be a surprise - not.

Needless to say Grieve can negate my accusation by releasing the damn papers - no?

Boardroom targets

We are informed by Tim Ross, the Daily Telegraph's political correspondent, that David Cameron may set targets for women in boardrooms. However, as usual, no-one at the Daily Telegraph has done their research - and if they have they choose to ignore it in order that, yet again, an article can be written that 'bigs-up' David Cameron as a decisive and forceful figure.


This business of women quotas arose this time last year when Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann's comment that a woman's presence on a company board might make meetings "prettier and more colorful" was one of the less constructive contributions to the debate raging in Germany and across Europe about the chronic absence of women serving at the top of major public companies. At the same time German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned German business leaders to "be creative, or we will be creative" and EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding stated that quotas might be necessary if businesses don't start to voluntarily comply. If self-regulation fails, legislation on quotas may follow. In fact in March last year EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding met European business leaders to push for more women in boardrooms.

"We need to use all of our society’s talents to ensure that Europe’s economy takes off. This is why the dialogue between the Commission and the social partners is so important. I believe that self-regulation could make a difference if it is credible and effective across Europe. However, I will come back to the matter in a year. If self-regulation fails, I am prepared to take further action at EU level."

The Commission stated in its 2010-15 gender equality strategy that it would address the gender imbalance in business decision-making through targeted initiatives. Commissioner Reding called on publicly listed companies to sign a ‘women on the board pledge’ by March 2012, making a voluntary commitment to increase women’s presence on their boards to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020, by actively recruiting qualified women to replace outgoing male board members. The Commission will assess in March 2012 whether there has been significant progress and whether ‘credible’ self-regulatory initiatives have been developed to increase women’s participation. If not, it will consider proposing EU legislation on the issue.

So what we have here is not Cameron being decisive and forceful - what we have here is Cameron doing what his masters in Brussels have asked him to do before he is ordered to do it! It would seem that Tim Ross is but doing the same job that Winston Smith was employed to do.


Afterthought: It is doubly sad that Yvette Cooper cannot admit that were she in government, she would have to do exactly the same thing!

Not so much with a bang, more like a simper.....

David Cameron's 'European Council statement' in the Commons this afternoon most definitely did not produce any outright rebellion from the so-called 'eurosceptics' as had been promised and one has to ask what happened to all the planning that was supposed to have been held in Edward Leigh's office last night?

Where were the 'searching and/or unanswerable' questions, ones to put Cameron 'on the spot'? For example, how can any action taken by those who have signed up to 'the treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' not encroach on the single market? All questions were couched in 'parliament-speak', a language which unless an MP is a wordsmith of great standing, as was Enoch Powell, ensures that any hint of sarcasm or ridicule is nullified. Even he who is held to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all, Bill Cash, missed the opportunity with what may be termed an extremely 'Cameron-friendly' question which was easily 'swatted away'.

It had been my intention to write further on this 'treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' but, as I write, I see that Richard North, EU Referendum, has beaten me to it. It is worth repeating the point Richard North makes; namely that Cameron still maintains the untruth he  vetoed a treaty when his own government spokesman has admitted that there was no treaty on the table. Note also that not one of the 'supposed' eurosceptics, those who were reportedly going to cause trouble, raised this point - not one and if they did it must have been when I turned the sound down on my laptop to answer a telephone call! Richard North writes that Cameron is guilty of misleading the House - but ever one to call a spade a spade, I would aver Cameron lied to the House. Unfortunately, in the HoC, one cannot utter the word 'lie'; which is probably due to the belief, one held among themselves needless to add, that politicians never lie - they just don't tell the truth!

Now watch the MSM swallow 'Cameron-speak' hook, line and sinker!

Afterthought: I see that David Cameron has stated that the decision to strip Fred the Shred of his knighthood was the right decision - if only we had the capability of stripping David Cameron of his position of Prime Minister - come to that, if only we had the capability of stripping the majority of MPs of their position........ The decision by Cameron (and he had a hand in it)  is 'democratised dictatorship' - the decision by us would just be 'democracy'........


Afterthought (2): Of course the news released now about Goodwin would not be a ploy to divert the public's attention from matters EU, would it?????

Cameron at Brussels - Sprouts!

Having watched SkyNews and Cameron's post conference press conference it is utterly amazing that the man is till maintaining there was a treaty on the table last December and that he vetoed it. The man is delusional, really delusional! (or just mad, plain barking mad and should be in Broadmoor)


Prior to that SkyNews showed pictures of the 'photo shoot' of EU Leaders (obligatory) and it did not escape my notice that once again Cameron was in the back row - the man obviously knows his place!


Just saying.........

The 'Guardian' of political rule

An editorial in the Guardian caught my eye in which they raise the point that the move by Alex Salmond for Scottish independence, if successful, may well cause Wales and Northern Ireland to seek the same conditions - a point already raised days ago on this blog.  That the editorial does not expand on the idea suggested is, I suppospposing e, only to be expected when considering the Guardian is part of the MSM. What, for example, would be the numbers of representatives in this Federal upper house?


The editorial's suggestion is based on a continuance of 'representative democracy', a system that is surely passed its "sell-by date". The fact the editorial does not even attempt to question what other systems of democracy are available, ones which might break the yoke of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently 'enslaved', is indicative of the relationship twixt politicians and the media, thus giving the impression that both politicians and media are indeed 'all in it together' in order to maintain the status quo. That the positions adopted by Alex Salmond and David Cameron in this argument are those purely to cement their own personal ability to exercise their hands on the levers of power dictatorship is one that would appear to have escaped the attention of the MSM.


That there is an alternative system of democracy available, one which would halve the number of MPs, disband both MSPs in Scotland and AMs in Wales, while returning power to those that matter, namely the people, is not even hinted at. After all, are not we supposed to be cutting our deficit? Should not all ways to accomplish that not be considered? Silly question really, I suppose.

Cameron and the ECHR

Courtesy of The Talking Clock, on Twitter, comes the words of Lord Denning, in 1986, on the matter of justice:

"I wish that I had put down my name to this amendment because it is important. As it is so impossible to understand what this is all about I must explain it.

The European Court has been overwhelmed with cases and cannot get through them. It is therefore seeking to make a number of lower courts—called attached courts—to deal with the gross overloading of work. That is the essential part of the article concerned, which in two or three places is a whole page long. The important point is that it is to set up a series of courts of first instance which would try cases on fact final, on law, and with appeal to the European Court.

I wish also to add a word about the European Court and its methods, which have been applied. They have been considered quite recently in the Court of Appeal in England. I am dealing with cases under those important articles 85 and 86 which deal with commercial matters of the first importance—abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition. Companies from the United Kingdom are closely involved in these matters. One case on those sections came, when I was sitting in the Court of Appeal, between an English Company, a garden cottage one, and a great English milk marketing board. The case I mentioned of 1985 was in the Court of Appeal between, again, two English companies, one from Belfast and the other from England. The case was all about repairing cameras, unfair competition and the like.

That last case went to the European Commission and thence to the European Court of Justice. I shall not go into the details of it, but the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, said it was totally unlike anything in our judicial system, with both sides being heard and dealt with then. Instead, it went before the European Commission, who were themselves treated as the investigators, almost as the prosecutors, and who carried it through, as Sir John Donaldson said, quite dissimilarly from our own English procedure. Indeed, he said that it was to be regarded as administrative and not judicial at all. The Commission, were, if you please, acting, as I would think sometimes they do on the Continent, as an inquisitorial system, enforcing their own view, instead of as an adversarial system which the law of England has always maintained.

The question which I am seeking to raise before your Lordships this afternoon is: Are the subjects of Her Majesty to be compelled, for their rights and defences, to go over to Europe to courts manned by European judges with a procedure quite unknown to us, a procedure which our own courts have said is not judicial in the least but merely administrative? Are we to let British subjects go over in that way?

Now I come to the British Constitution. We have a basis which is quite unknown in Europe. Each one of us, and each judge (certainly each one here) has the oath of allegiance to the Queen and, corresponding to that in our constitution, is a duty on the Queen to protect us. By our constitution the Queen is the source and fountain of justice. It is at her behest that we have Royal Courts of Justice here; it is at her behest that our judges are Her Majesty's judges, and it is at her behest, for the protection of all of us in response to our allegiance to her, that she sets up the courts of justice to hear and decide our disputes.

I would like to emphasise that unknown in Europe is this constitutional principle of the allegiance of the British subject on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty of the Crown to protect the British subjects. Let me remind your Lordships of the oath of allegiance. It is constitutional, the oath which every Member of your Lordships' House takes, and it is from an Act going back 100 years or more: I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. Every one of your Lordships knows that oath of allegiance. It is part of our fundamental constitution. Let me remind you of our judges' oath as well: I do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of a justice of the High Court, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.

This is also part of our Constitution: corresponding to that duty of each British subject to the Queen, the Queen herself is under corresponding duty to protect British subjects in our rights, which we have inherited all the way down the line. I remind you that the Roman Empire had the same duty. There is Paul and so on: "Can you do this to a Roman citizen?"—Civis Romanus sum. You all know that quotation. Did not Palmerston say in 1850, in his greatest speech: As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity when he could say 'Civis Romanus sum, so also, a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong.". That duty in England, the duty of protection of our citizens, the correlative of allegiance by the Queen, is done by provision of the police force to protect us, and by the courts of justice which she has established.

I need not go into all the cases. This principle can be found back in the time of Lord Coke, in Calvin's case, as between England and Scotland: Ligeance is the mutual bond and obligation between the King and his subjects, whereby subjects are called his liege subjects because they are bound to obey him; and he is called their liege Lord because he should maintain and defend them.". The most recent illustration of it is the China Navigation case, reported in 1932 King's Bench. So the Queen is bound to protect us and to afford courts of justice on which we can rely and to which we can go.

In Europe that constitution is unknown. There is no one source or fountain of justice in Europe. Let me tell you the oath which, under this Treaty of Rome, each judge takes: I swear that I will perform my duties impartially and consistently, and preserve the secrecy and deliberations of the court". I repeat: I will perform my duties". What are those duties? Nowhere are they spelt out in the Court of Justice except in Article 162: The Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed". The only duty of those Community judges is a duty to see that the law is observed; in other words, that Community law is observed, not the law of England. There is no duty to protect the British subject. Are we then today to say that British subjects are not to go to our courts in England or to Her Majesty's judges in order to secure justice; and that they are not to seek the protection of the law as we know it under the hearings and procedures which we have established over the centuries, but to go to an attached court, to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

According to this proposed article the attached court will operate according to the same modes of procedure as at the moment. It is a procedure and process which has already been condemned by the Court of Appeal in England as quite dissimilar from our English law and indeed merely administrative. Are British subjects to be compelled to go there?

That is my criticism of this article which is mentioned in two or three places in this part of the group that we are discussing now, as I tried to point out, because you cannot see it other than by reading through them. There it is in Amendment No. 42 on the Marshalled List: The provisions of Article 168A of the EEC Treaty"— that is the article that we are now considering and it is the one which establishes these attached courts in Luxembourg—shall not be interpreted or applied so as to enable any such attached court to sit in the United Kingdom, or to exercise any jurisdiction over British subjects resident in the United Kingdom". That is subsection (1).

Subsection (2) states: In lieu of the jurisdiction of any such attached court, every British subject resident in the United Kingdom and owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen shall be entitled to the protection of Her Majesty, according to the law of England, administered by Her Majesty's Judges sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice under the Rules of the Supreme Court". I am stressing the constitution there.

Then in subsection (3) there is a parallel jurisdiction where we do it ourselves: If and in so far as under Article 168A … any such attached court is given jurisdiction to decide disputes according to Community Law, a like jurisdiction shall be exercised by Her Majesty's Judges also to decide them according to Community Law (in so far as that is made part of the law of England …)". So there it is. It is simple and intelligible, I hope. All it is saying is that we British subjects owe allegiance to the Queen and the Queen is under a duty to protect us. She has performed this duty by providing the Royal Courts of Justice to which we can take our disputes and have them decided by Her Majesty's judges. We should not be compelled to go over to a court in Europe manned by we know not whom or in what circumstances in order to go through a procedure and process that are altogether unknown to our law and which the Master of the Rolls has said are quite dissimilar to our own procedure and practice."

And our politicians are, in general, in agreement that membership of the ECHR is essential for social justice? Of course, allowances have to be made for David Cameron who did not start work in the Conservative Research Department until 1988, so he was probably concentrating more on 'Bulling(don)about' with the likes of Boris to take an interest in that which was happening in the real world. It is also debatable whether the Philosophy content of his PPE actually included any aspect of history and the philosophy that our forebears in history had - but I digress.

That is probably why the man who believes in change has spent part of today trying to argue for change in the presence of the unchangeable!

Why a clean slate is needed

In my preceding post I posed the question whether the Coalition will last because of the wish of two disparate political parties to rescue the economy of our country, or whether it will last because the top echelon of those two disparate parties wish to retain their individual positions of privilege and power. 


Where people wish to retain positions of privilege and power, be that the public or private sector, if pushed into the proverbial corner they will lie to save their careers. An example of this fact has been illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, (do follow the links) in which he shows that Cameron has in effect misled the House of Commons.


That the questioner, nor any other MP (God forbid MilibandE, who doesn't appear to know what day of the week it is) was not immediately hitting the 'airways' asking the question posed in Richard North's headline to his post, namely "Whose this "We", Cameron", leads one to finally believe that they are indeed "all in it together" - to coin a phrase. The marked lack of so-called 'Eurosceptics' so doing, was telling - what? Where was Cash, Carswell, Heaton-Harris, Bone, Jenkin (to name but a few) - and more importantly, although not an MP, where was that 'arch-antiEUer' Daniel Hannan, from whom so far we have not heard one peep?


The lack of rebuttal by MPs (and MEPs) can only be due to:


(a) they have no idea of what membership of the EU entails;


(b) they have no wish to 'rock the boat' as they are hoping for advancement in their careers', or:


(c) they are 'brain-dead' idiots.


Personally, I suspect the latter as that seems to be the prime qualification for entry into our political system.


Apologies for 'banging-on' about it, but does this not illustrate why our present system of democracy must, repeat must, be changed/


Just saying...............

In brief

Once upon a time our railways were operated as separate undertakings (LNER, GWR etc) which through the process of transition became known as British Rail and then Network Rail. A further transition has occured whereby it is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU). (Explanatory Notes)  Now you can see why HS2 is being imposed, that it is not a Government initiative but one that originates from Brussels and TEN-T.

David Cameron - aka Dear Leader Dav il Cam - has vowed to rein in executive pay. It is a great pity he does not vow to rein in executive power - which is why talkconstitution.net has been created. The fact that this ''news" report carries little detail or substance is not surprising - it may well be a precis of an information sheet put out by CCHQ - leads on to an aspect of journalism that I have previously covered.

Autonomous Mind posts on the reported, alleged attack by a 10-year-old boy on his teachers, the actual details of which were not covered by reports in the MSM. As AM states, this is due to (his words) a media that is "lazy, derivative and unfit for purpose , therefore ill-serving the public audience. No doubt it will fall to blogs to tell the story the media is incapable or unwilling to research and publish, and serve the public interest". That well-deserved statement can be applied to almost anything that the media reports, especially where matters EU are concerned. Apropos that last point, Richard North EU Referendum has yet another example of lax media 'reporting'.

Charles Moore, in his usual op-ed article in today's Daily Telegraph, poses the question of why have a House of Lords if there's not a single Lord left in it? He opens his article thus:

"Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy."

Is not the present state of politics in this country an affront to the principles of democracy? Is not the media, with their servility to the political class, an affront to the principles of democracy?

Just asking......................

Drunk as a skunk

We are advised today that Dav il Cam, ('Dav il', as in the landlord of Hell) aka Dear Leader of Region UK in the People's Republic of Europe, is of a mind to increase the price of alcohol by one means or another. The Daily Telegraph editorial bemoans the fact that unless this 'measure' is fully thought through, problems may well arise. That comment prompts two immediate thoughts: when has any political policy ever been fully thought through - and come to that, when has any DT editorial ever been thought through, today's being the latest example; but I digress.


Today is also the day when it is announced by, amongst others, Politics Home that MPs are set for a survey on the facilities in the House of Commons for the third successive year at a cost of £27,790, making the point that in previous years many Parliamentarians have complained about the price of food in the the various eateries and bars on the Parliamentary Estate. Presumably, in consideration of his statement that we are all in it together, Dav il Cam will also decree that MPs will be paying the 'state price' for their alcohol.


Dav il Cam illustrates only too plainly that a skunk can easily get drunk; in his case from the power he 'assumes' under our system of governance - aka democratised dictatorship.

Semantics

Today John Redwood posted what I believe most would accept as a reasonable answer to his own question of whether a Central Bank can go bust. In answer to a well-reasoned comment by Faustiesblog, which hinted at the probity of MPs, John Redwood replied:

".......I think it very unlikely that an MP who has served time for false accounting or theft will make it back into government. It is very unlikely they would stand again for election, and unlikely they would be elected if they did."

Was not Alan Keen guilty of false accounting and was it not suggested by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards he should repay £5,678 for a serious breach of the rules? Did not the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee reduce that figure to £1,500? Was not Alan Keen re-elected on 6 May 2010? (Wikipedia) Alan Keen may not have served time, but the man committed what was in effect a fraud. Yet on November 23rd David Cameron delivers a eulogy to the man? A eulogy repeated by MilibandE who stated that Keen had 'friends across the House' - which is probably why Alan Keen escaped being 'thrown to the wolves', thus not suffering what may be called 'Devine' intervention.

It is indeed sad that a Rt. Honourable member of the House of Commons should insert the words 'served time' in his response, because are there not 'Honourable' members still sitting who broke the spirit of the expenses scheme at the time? They may not have 'served time', but they were considered 'guilty' by public opinion. That those 'guilty' men and women did stand for re-election and were re-elected is probably the most unfortunate result of the what passes for democracy in this country. Are we not still awaiting the result of investigations into the behaviour of the Member for Rotherham, a decision thereon that appears to be taking an inordinate amount of time? Do we not have in the House of Commons a Secretary of State, who it is reported, is about to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?

And members of the House of Commons are 'Honourable'? With some more 'Right' than others?