The Daily Telegraph report this morning on leaks from the Commission considering a UK Bill of Rights, linked here reports the following:
A note from the Commission to Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, dated July 2011, warns that allowing MPs to vote down unpopular decisions by the European Court isa throwback to Nazi Germany
“If a right or freedom is fundamental, how can it be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it? It should be remembered that many of the most objectionable laws passed in Nazi Germany were passed, at least in the early years, by a democratically elected assembly.”
What mind could construct the question posed in the secon paragraph of the above quote?
If a democratic legislature does not have such a right, what higher authority can there be to override or overrule it. The argument that the Nazis were at one point democratically successful is here being justified to legitimize any act of authoritarianism by ..... ? Here one must assume the Lib/Dems and Ken Clarke would insert either Judges or Courts! Yet in Britain (in spite of the "locked in" case announced yesterday, itself a gross travesty) only Parliament acting on behalf of the people has the right to pass legislation limiting the scope of Common Law.
Tory backbench MPs should mark, note and prevent what is now underway.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Coalition breaking apart at the seams.
It was always likely that it would be the EU in the background of the falling apart of the Cameron/Clegg Coalition. The signs that this is so are clear in the breakdown within the Committee considering Human Rights, where the factions are actually described as "Cameron appointees" or "Clegg appointees", see the leaked email in this Daily Telegraph report as follows:
“I wish to put on record now the view that I have already expressed - namely, that our present funding is completely insufficient. It is not a matter of marginal additional funding but of substantial additional funding…
“At the moment, some of the Clegg appointees have the benefit of work by members of trusts and personal staffs. As far as I am aware, the Cameron appointees lack any such facilities. It seems reasonable to allocate at least a part of the staff to servicing the Cameron group. In order to avoid bias, I suggest an equal allocation of staff time to the Clegg appointees...
"I gather from friends at the Council of Europe that the UK is exceptionally heavily populated with pressure groups on human rights and related matters. They are fully entitled to express their view. But these views already are well articulated and well known.
"While we need to be open to such pressure groups and to official bodies associated with them (such as the EHRC) we need to be careful that their demands for access to the Commission do not crowd out those of the 'silent majority'."
“I wish to put on record now the view that I have already expressed - namely, that our present funding is completely insufficient. It is not a matter of marginal additional funding but of substantial additional funding…
“At the moment, some of the Clegg appointees have the benefit of work by members of trusts and personal staffs. As far as I am aware, the Cameron appointees lack any such facilities. It seems reasonable to allocate at least a part of the staff to servicing the Cameron group. In order to avoid bias, I suggest an equal allocation of staff time to the Clegg appointees...
"I gather from friends at the Council of Europe that the UK is exceptionally heavily populated with pressure groups on human rights and related matters. They are fully entitled to express their view. But these views already are well articulated and well known.
"While we need to be open to such pressure groups and to official bodies associated with them (such as the EHRC) we need to be careful that their demands for access to the Commission do not crowd out those of the 'silent majority'."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)