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.

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!

'Erewigo' - again!

Only yesterday, in a post, I wrote:

"The plight of our country is further compounded by deficits in our present system of democracy, namely representative democracy, which amounts to democratised dictatorship, in that elected politicians are able to enrol our country in agreements and treaties over which we the people have no voice.
That 'power' which politicians have taken invariably leads them into a situation from which there is no escape - witness membership to the ECHR. It is that 'power' that has allowed our nation to be subsumed into the European Union - and, as with the ECHR, led us to be 'governed' by forces outside our control. All the above begs the question why we allow a government to exist that is unable to govern?"

A post from PJC Jounal - IPJ on Politics followed by a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, alerts us to what without question will be an impending directive from Brussels - one which is set to change and no doubt increase the scale of repossessions by lenders within the housing market.


That this decision actually originates from what may be termed a division of 'a global government' (follow RN's links) firstly begs the question why the hell we are so concerned about EU membership when it would seem that it is now obvious that there is an even larger threat to national independence in existence whose intention is the imposition of world-wide totalitarianism? Just who are 'these people' (they are not only comprised of politicians), members of such organisations as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, to what 'organisations' do they actually belong? Whom exactly 'controls' the secretive Bilderberg Group - and to what 'organisations'  do they belong?


For those, like me, concerned with the sovereignty of our country, the problem takes on a dimension of unimaginable proportions. To give but one example: the United Nations was set up in 1945, replacing the League of Nations, primarily to permit dialogue between nations with differences and thereby, hopefully, stop further war (something in which they have been highly successful - not) yet now stick their fingers into many, many other matters such as economic development and social progress. That is but one mass of agreements which would require renegotiation if the UK was to become truly independent - and there are many other such organisations (eg ECHR) that would require a similar process. Membership of such organisations have all been 'signed' by politicians without any process of said agreements being sanctioned by the people - yet there are many like me that maintain the people are sovereign, ie the masters of their own destiny and that of their country.


Judging by the 'traffic' on Twitter - and the blogosphere in general - it would appear people are concerned, for example, about the polling figures of political parties; they are concerned about who is better placed to 'run' the UK; Cameron or MilibandE. In view of the foregoing, I am forced to return to my original question, namely what is the point of a government that cannot govern? That question then raises another: what chance do those of us, concerned about our country, have when pitted against forces whose 'strength' we know not? There are some, like me, who believe that the fairest and most logical form of democracy is direct democracy, so - regardless of one's views on that suggestion and regardless of any form of democracy - how can any system function when those involved, be they politicians or bureaucrats, may well have other 'allegiances'. That such individuals are able to 'operate' is due simply to the present indifference of the people in their respective countries - ie, there is a lack of will-power amongst the people to take an interest or voice their opposition. 


Perhaps we should just 'curl up and die'? History tells us that, eventually, in all dictatorial or totalitarian situations people do finally come to their senses and exercise that 'will' - consequently there can only be one answer to that question: NEVER!


Just a few initial 'musings' - or 'witterings'............

Here's another fine mess you've got us into......

As Laurel and Hardy used to say - well, one of them did.

Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, writes about the case of Victor Akulic - an article on which Richard North, EU Referendum, passes comment. On the same day we are informed that Cameron - aka Dav il Cam - is to 'confront' the judges from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), telling them: "Stop meddling in British justice." - on which again Richard North comments, linking to Autonomous Mind. On the same subject  of ECHR 'rulings' we have the recent decision from the ECHR on the matter of Abu Qatada, yet another decision which shows just how impotent is our supposed government.

It is readily acknowledged that I have been 'banging on' about the defects of our membership of the European Union and all that that entails, but the problems we face are compounded by membership of organisations like the ECHR in which we have no place under the present terms of membership. The plight of our country is further compounded by deficits in our present system of democracy, namely representative democracy, which amounts to democratised dictatorship, in that elected politicians are able to enroll our country in agreements and treaties over which we the people have no voice.

That 'power' which politicians have taken invariably leads them into a situation from which there is no escape - witness membership to the ECHR. It is that 'power' that has allowed our nation to be subsumed into the European Union - and, as with the ECHR, led us to be 'governed' by forces outside our control. All the above begs the question why we allow a government to exist that is unable to govern?

Is it not time that those who controlled the shovels with which they dig an even bigger pit, into which we are forced to fall, had their shovels taken away from them? 

Surely we cannot go on like this?

The Daily Telegraph reports that George Osborne told MPs that it may well be necessary for extra support to be provided by Britain to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the global fund to help stricken governments. We read in the Mail that Barroso is calling for Member States to contribute even more to the EU bail-out fund. Ian Parker-Joseph posts on why Member States are unable to reduce their spending and Pixijade posts a most telling graphic on the state of the UK's debt.


Elsewhere, in other news, the Mail breaks the news of the findings of a report, one commissioned by a group of ten Conservative MPs, on events since Britain's subscribed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The report can be downloaded from here (see foot of page) and on that page will be found the names of the ten Conservative MPs concerned. The question of Britain's acceptance of the ECHR is further complicated by the European Union's intention to join the ECHR in its own right; and on that last point Open Europe has a reasonable summary here.


What the above shows is that monies forcibly extracted from us in the form of taxation is being spent by politicians without any referral to those that are providing it - which makes a case for 'referism'; that any Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget is not fully under his control - hence a loss of sovereignty; that politicians, especially Conservatives, seem to speak without engaging brain whilst also seeming to have no idea how to clear debt. What a way to run a country!


All of which also shows that a debate on the type of democracy under which we live is long overdue.

ECHR to rule on 'kettling'?

An small article in today's print edition of the Daily Telegraph (another which does not appear to be available on-line) caught my eye, one with no journalistic by-line, which announced in its headline that "Europe to rule on kettling". The article mentions that the case relates to a demonstration against globalisation which was held during 2001 in London, citing Lois Austin who took part in the protest and who, having had her claim dismisssed in the House of Lords, had taken the case to the European Court of Human Rights for a ruling. From the provisional list of schedued hearings we learn that the hearing is due to be heard on 14th of September, the facts being these.*

The result will be one of importance to this country when taken in the context of the eternal argument about loss of powers and also the question of who actually governs. It will also no doubt have a bearing on this recent ruling and this one.


* Worth reading - the articles referred to in the European Convention on Human Rights can be found here.