Friday, 18 February 2011

Hop off, Froggie; you're not a real judge

Froggie civil servant / adminstrator Jean-Paul Costa, pictured below in his clown's costume replete with rosette of Satanic Stars, has likened the UK to the dictatorship of the Greek Colonels if we refuse to give child killers and axe murderers the vote as the ECHR has ordered. 

Hop-off, Froggie. We know you're not a real judge. We have nothing but contempt for your silly dressing-up and play-acting. Now go home and get Mme Costa to sew some more sequins on your costume. 


Anonymous said...

Madame Defarge may have better attire.

Anonymous said...

Hey, why not have axe murderers and paedophiles as judges in the ECHR, or their human rights will be violated.

Gareth said...

What passes unsaid by this prick is that strict adherence to the convention is not required. It recognises the limits the ECHR has.

David Davis goes some way to getting their but not far enough imo and Westminster politicians are quite happy to allow such sleights of hand to be sustained. The idea that they *must* defer to a foreign authority is just a sop to shutting up the people they claim to represent. They could, like other nations, take a rational and proportionate approach to the convention accepting it where it makes sense and deviating from it where it also makes sense. Westminster instead loves to outsource regulation making 'cos it gives them much less work to do - all they need do is con the public.

As for rejecting the convention, it is the height of arrogance for that prick to assume that no better way is possible.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Meanwhile, as just posted on the Speccy site, "the Government is not planning to defy the ECHR".

By "government", of course, they mean the local rubber-stamping administration in Westminster, not the actual Government - which is in Brussels and has no intention of ever defying any of its own organs.

Reading this actually makes me feel physically ill. When, exactly, did we hand over our affairs to these people?

(Don't answer that question, I know all the steps, stages, treaties, and traitors involved - I've lived through it; when I was a child I lived in a free independent country and it makes me sick that I no longer do - but this is where I came in, isn't it)

Blue Eyes said...

I get bored of pointing out that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU and was drafted mostly by British politicians and lawyers. The annex which requires the prisoners' votes was only signed up in the dying days of the last British government. Could not the current government simply unratify it?

johnse18 said...

It is correct that the ECHR is not the same thing as the EU but quite wrong to say that they have nothing to do with each other.

First, membership of the ECHR is a necessary condition for membership of the EU.

Second, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty aka the EU Constitution the EU now has "legal personailty" which means that it can sign treaties off its own bat, essentially acting as a sovereign nation in itself. Also under the terms if the LT, the EU is in the process of joining the ECHR as a state in its own right. This means
any EU member state will be bound by rulings of the ECHR simply by being in the EU. They are also trying to arrange that the Luxembourg Court (the EU Supreme Court) has primacy over the Eupropean Court of Human Rights.

We cannot just unratify parts of this. We can't reform it. We need to get out.

johnse18 said...

A link with more details:

Don Cox said...

Voting in an election indicates your opinion as to which candidate has the better policies. I see no obvious reason why somebody who is in jail shouldn't have an opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's.

Getting an axe man to vote is not the same as sending him out in the street with an axe.

Anyway, what proportion of those in jail are axe murderers?

Blue Eyes said...

Your logic is astounding, JohnSE18. Just because the EU treaty requires members to be also members of the ECHR does not mean that the ECHR is anything to do with the EU. The EU requires all sorts of memberships of international groupings. We could leave the EU tomorrow and we would still be members of the ECHR.

We can unratify whatever we damned well please. Parliament is sovereign. The bit of the ECHR which came in recently was a newish protocol which Parliament foolishly gave ministers the power to sign. Parliament could unsign it tomorrow if it wanted to.

Don't confuse political lack of will with constitutional impossibility.

The ECHR is not a state. The EU wants to be a state. Two completely utterly different issues.

Raedwald said...

Blue Eyes - they both have the circle of stars as their emblem. Now whilst it's perfectly true that Roland Freisler's 'People's Court' was completely independent and separate from Himmler's Gestapo, the fact that both sported the Swastika kinda gave things away. To my simple mind, anyhow.

Blue Eyes said...

More importantly for the ignorami who *are* allowed to cast votes in elections, both organisations have the word "European" in them and are therefore indistinguishably evil. Until we can stop people who don't know what they're talking about from choosing the leaders we will probably be stuck with the politicians we have.

Hold on a minute, did this thread just invoke Godwin's Law?

johnse18 said...

I never said that the ECHR and the EU are the same thing. However they are increasingly interlinked and they are both part of a general movement towards pan-European government. We could formally come out of the ECHR. According to the treaties the EU could expel us from the Union, which is fine by me though in practice they would be unlikely to do it. However, as soon as the EU joins the ECHR as a state in its own right then we are automatically in it anyway.

According to the treaties we have signed up to we are bound by all these rulings. For some time now EU Law has been recognised as trumping UK Law, as has been found by our courts on numerous occasions e.g. google Factortame.

I never mentioned political will. Of course if the political will and, ultimately, the military capability, is sufficient then anything can be done. But what we would have to do is declare unilaterally (it can't be done by negotiation because it would require the agreement of all 27 member states) that we refuse to be bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

I would love us to do this (fishing policy might be a good place to start) but I don't see the remotest intention from any of the 3 main parties, let alone the determination, to force it.

Blue Eyes said...

Ye Gods.

The reason that the ECHR decisions are binding is because legislation that Parliament has passed says that they are binding. Parliament could change that immediately if it was so minded.

The ECHR is not a state.

We don't have to "declare" anything about the Lisbon Treaty if we don't want to be bound by it, Parliament simply repeals the legislation which give it legal force in the UK.

Perhaps it is worth a basic Googling of treaty procedure and the British constitution before commenting wildly on such subjects?

alison said...

The point of all this is not micro-wibbling about which European institutions are, or are not, part of the EU government apparatus. They all agree with each other on everything anyway, so it doesn't much matter.

The point of all this IS that the UK should make its own laws, full stop, end of. And no foreign prince, prelate, pontiff, or anyone else has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction in this realm. I paraphrase.

We can debate whether convicts should have the vote, there are arguments to be made on both sides, but it's OUR parliament that should have those debates, and OUR delegates who should decide.

Not some bunch of jumped-up unelected continentals.

THAT is the point.

johnse18 said...

> The ECHR is not a state.

Never said it was. The EU however has now assumed pretty much all the attributes of statehood. Having "legal personality" as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty aka EU Constitution means that it can now presume to sign treaties as a state in its own right. As a member state we are then by default subject to the terms of those treaties.

>We don't have to "declare" >anything about the Lisbon Treaty >if we don't want to be bound by >it, Parliament simply repeals the >legislation which give it legal >force in the UK.

Yes we do have to declare something. In the case of the "Metric Martyrs" some years ago a ruling of the Appeals Court found that Acts of Parliament divide into 2 categories, constitutional and non-constitutional. Examples of constitutional ones would be te Representation of the People's Acts, and the European Communities Act 1972 - also the Act that has been passed enabling the Lisbon Treaty.

In general Constitutional Acts are held to trump non-constitutional ones even if passed subsequently, UNLESS the non-constitutional Act explicitly states that it repeals part or all of the former act.

For example see:

So yes Parliament can repeal whatever it wants but it would in this case have to declare explicitly that it was repealing part of the legislation enacting the Lisbon Treaty. If it didn't do that then its provisions would be struck down by OUR judges.

Also if it wanted, Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act and its successors.

No constitutional problem there at all.

Also if it wanted, Parliament could repeal the Government of India Act of 1935 (?) and declare Boris Johnson to be the new Viceroy.

No problem there at all, as far as the British Constitution is concerned.

Whether these things can then translated into facts on the ground will depend on other factors, in particular political will, and ultimately brute force.

As I have said I would love the present government to take back powers and defy the terms of the Lisbon Treaty but I can't see it happening under this lot.