Tuesday, 25 February 2014

H/T Witterings from Witney

Hat Tip to Witterings from Witney and This Link

Neuberger LJ's text (via Edward Spalton, whose comments frequently add to the quality of debate on this blog) is a model of clear, concentrated, waffle-free legal reasoning and I commend it to you. Comments please on WfW's blog rather than here. 


Anonymous said...

WfW has closed the comments section for this thread, and there have been none anyway, so I would like to make a couple of comments here.

The judge makes a couple of serious statements of what in his view are facts...

First, he claims that we do not have a written constitution... Well we don't have a codified list of rights (or at least we didn't), but we do have several treaties that set out what our government is NOT permitted to do to us ordinary folk. Which I think most sensible people would agree is simpler and offers greater overall protection.

The most important one was Magna Carta and a further major one (agreed outside of the king's remit) i.e. another treaty, or contract, by the "Declaration of Rights", this was later codified in the "Bill of Rights" by parliament... (recognised by the king).

There are other similar treaties, including the common law, the establishment (incrementally) of universal suffrage and a few others, which were forced on the king (parliament), by a powerful section of the people.


Anonymous said...

From above:

The second "statement of fact" is slightly different because it was characterised by a major exercise in sleight of hand... He claims that we were applying to join the EU from the late 1950's until what he called "our accession" in 1973.

The sleight of hand is that there was absolutely no attempt by any member of the government at any time to inform the public what the "common market" actually was... i.e. an attempt at creating a federal Europe made up of the previously established sovereign nation states (albeit mostly cobbled together in the late 1800's).

If one was into the rather arcane literature that was available at considerable cost from HMSO (Her Majesty's Stationery Office), it could be interpreted from the white paper that led to the 1972 ECA that it was indeed the intention to seek "ever and closer union" with the other members of the EEC (common market).

There were two or three MP's, none of whom were in government during the period concerned... I can think of Powell, Benn and Shore as prominent among them, that understood this and campaigned on this basis.

The government arrogantly tossed aside their assertions, and starved them of money when it came to the 1975 referendum. The "establishment" knew precisely what it was doing, both against the people of this nation, and in pursuance of "ever and closer union", it was believed that we would not accept the idea, so we should be kept in the dark (like mushrooms), and that the idea (or ideology) was sound.

But he judge is right when he says "Understanding the historical and cultural context is essential to a proper understanding of such debates - to explain what the issues are, and how and why they arise. Without that, there is little prospect of appreciating the real nature of the underlying issues. The historical context also serves usefully to remind us that things often look very different after the event, even to those in the thick of the argument."

Unfortunately, he went on to spoil it by completely misunderstanding the context.

Further, I would say that this country has not had an armed revolution, simply because we have had a couple of civilised "British" style revolutions, like Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, which preceded the the implicit threat of armed insurrection, ended in treaties and thus avoided it.

Churchill was right when he declared during the establishment of the "Council" and the "Convention" that "...we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed..."

So , I cannot take the comments of this judge with any more than a "pinch of salt", in the same way that I do not accept that the "Harromates" of which WfW is a prominent member has anything much useful to say about the way that we are governed.

They are all too absorbed in the next shrill attack on UKIP by their "messiah" Richard North, who is a brilliant researcher, but a man with a huge grudge, who seems to have attracted a little coterie of sycophants, (similarly annoyed that their every utterance has not been treated with the weight (in their opinions) that they deserve.

Vote UKIP and vote often.

Anonymous said...

Further to the comment about HMSO, between 1972 and 1974, I worked as a junior solicitor's clerk and I did know and use HMSO, along with Sweetings and Wildy's the law bookshops.

I even remember buying a copy of the ECA (white paper) for my boss, which I scanned on the bus back to the office.

So I voted "no" in the 1975 national referendum.

Anonymous said...

BTW: I agree with your comments regarding "Edward Spalton" Raedwald.

A good egg:


He knows his stuff!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Thank you for the link, Raedwald - it is much appreciated.

I do have to point out to right_writes that had he read my short post he would have seen why the comments were closed. Tsk, tsk

WitteringsfromWitney said...

One further comment if I may, without wishing to abuse your hospitality - and this, too, is directed at right_writes.

Perhaps he may wish to read the follow-up to my original post?

Anonymous said...

Yes Raedwald, I apologise if I am abusing your hospitality, but I cannot let WfW's comment sit there unchallenged.


As usual, the only part that WfW and his merry gang want to engage on, is the bit where I give my reason/s for not reading his blog.

Therefore, I won't know what his follow-up post contains.

Vote UKIP.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the hypothetical syllogisms of a man versed in the art of telling it complicated but couching it all in the deception of reasonable words and a subtext of recondite polemic with airy half truths.

The original articles of the European human rights Convention signed by Britain in 1950.

These articles were designed for a Europe and a continent of nations who were rebuilding themselves and restructuring civilian society after a savage bloodletting and warfare which enslaved and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
WE signed, as one and because we were one; of the victorious nations of an alliance which removed the stain of National Socialism from the face of the map.
Britain, had it's own statutes and law but this new convention was for Europe and Europe only.

Then, Ted took us into the clutches of Europe and lied through his teeth to do so - telling the nation it's only a, "common market" not a nascent federal state which all the time he knew it to be.

As the Empire of Brussels has coalesced, the Brussels machine and its Battalions of legal Nomemklatura developed a very big stick to whip and then oppress, hector and bulldoze the individual nations of EU and into the strait jacket of a European superstate. A superstate, where all major decisions are taken undemocratically by the unelected European commission and guess what grants them 'the Kommissars' the veneer of legitimacy pray tell? What a surprise, it is none other than the ECJ of course!

It's called the ECJ but the distinction between the ECJ and the ECHR is a nicety of cloud banks of legalese aka - obfuscation and is dissimilar only in terms of jesuitical nuance from it's bigger far more ugly sister, the ECHR.
It's what Lord Justice Neuberger doesn't tell us that is telling.

Judges in the ECJ write and rewrite statute which are sent down as diktat from the Empire of Brussels. This system is so designed, that, it supersedes sovereign legislatures - we [Britain] are expected to immediately incorporate these diktats into British law and if we fail to do so are then in breach of European law and are then subject to censure, fines and whatnot. ECJ, ECHR beaks who know little of the law but know much of carefully crafted interference in other countries legal systems.

So this:

"Right to respect for private and family life

1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Becomes, a charter for any charlatan or nutter, using the pretext of 'rights to a family life' to prolong his stay in a country [Britain] even though his remaining in said country - is a threat to national security. Thus does the right of any tom, dick or Ahmed, individuals, transcend those human rights of the majority.

That's not good law but that's a stupidity of the ECHR and by extension the ECJ and the EU - we didn't sign up to that in 1950 and that's called mission creep in anybodies language.

Oooh Mr. Neuberger please take the train and while you're at it take your ignoble acts - ECHR-ECJ with you.

G. Tingey said...

Point 34 is the important one
Which some people are trying to remove - hance the fight about will trusts & confidentiality ...
Oops, to say the least.

Oh - European Arrest Warrant, anyone - no Prima Faciae case to answer?

WRONG, I'm afraid.
Magna Cart is, now unimportant, except as the start of a process.
The Bill of Rights 1687/8 is the one that really, really matters.

For that, even I, at age 68, would take up arms.

Edward Spalton said...

Having thought about it for a few days, it seemed to me that Lord Neuberger had slid over an important point.
He remarked on our law-abiding, non revolutionary tradition and hope it would continue. Yet he neglected to mention that this tradition grew out of the fact that the law was ours and was always subject to the possibility of reform and amendment through Parliament. So, even people who disagreed with present law would mostly obey it as a matter of principle, not just expedience. This was the Anglican doctrine called "passive obedience" which helped to keep the peace. As an EU province, that possibility of peaceful reform is ever more remote. We no longer "own" the law which is imposed from outside.
The law is falling into ever greater disrepute. The distance between what the French call the "pays reel" and the "pays legal" gets wider all the time. ( Sorry about absence of accents!)