Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): There is a great irony in the position that the government and Conservatives adopt on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. One of Gordon Brown's specious red lines is designed to prevent the Charter from taking effect in the UK and to keep the European Court of Justice's nose out of the UK's affairs. William Hague has denounced the Charter as an intrusion. And now the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee seems to have implicitly joined them in fearing that the ECJ might exercise some additional jurisdiction in the UK. Of course, parliamentary sovereignty was lost ages ago, under the Tories, and the ECJ already rules here on matters of EU law.
But isn't there also an irony in that the two main parties are defending the British people from human rights that most people in this country want? They do so explicitly to please the CBI, and to protect our flexible labour market and control the trade unions, but experts on European affairs don't buy this explanation, saying that there is no evidence that the CBI is that bothered. No, it is the time-honoured defence of 'the British way of doing things' against external encroachments and democratic reform at home - in other words, to preserve their own flexible labour market in government. They sign up to human rights and labour treaties without any intention of honouring them in British law - they are for lesser breeds outside British law. In this sense, the Human Rights Act was an aberration - for which we should thank John Smith - from which both main parties now seek to resile.
Comments
I would suggest one reason that the UK government don't want the CFR to be 100% applicable within the UK is to prevent the feudal institution that is the Duchy of Cornwall being in anyway challenged. This strange constitutional body that has an existence, in many ways, outside English law yet still has the right to interfere in our lives should be the focus of detailed academic research.
In fact the question must be asked why has there been so little research done on the duchy? An Internet search has so far thrown up one paper! The history and constitution of the Duchy of Cornwall would seem like a rewarding and rich subject for a researcher to engage in, so why has this not happened?
The real irony of the whole thing is that the Protocol (so-called opt out) instructs UK courts to keep their snouts out as well. I wonder if HMG is more scared of the Court of Justice or of the UK courts? I would call this document, actually, a Declaration masquerading as a Protocol.
Stuart Weir, you are not alone. See my 1 December 2007 blog posting EU Fundamental Rights.
The apparent toleration of unequal rights in the English legal system
Seneth an Stenegow Kernow
CORNISH STANNARY PARLIAMENT
http://www.cornishstannaryparliament.org/ info@cornishstannaryparliament.org
7th November 2007
Stephen Otter,
The Chief Constable,
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary,
Exeter.
Dear Sir,
The apparent toleration of unequal rights in the English legal system
It is contended that the British public has been denied the otherwise worldwide constitutional or statutory public right to enforce compliance with the principle of equality before the law upon those "performing functions withinthe public administration".
This is not merely a republican aspiration since, the Constitution of the Monarchy of Sweden, Chapter 1 Article 9,provides, "Courts, public authorities and others performing functions within the public administration shall observe in their work the equality of all persons before the law and shall maintain objectivity and impartiality".
Without offering any explanation to the Cornish Stannary Parliament inrespect of applications made to the European Court of Human Rights of April 2006 and to the European Court of Justice of July 2007 concerning attempts to have introduced into the domestic law of the United Kingdom the United Nations right to an enforceable guarantee of equality before the law as laiddown in the Universal Declaration, Article 7, have been rejected.
The rejection of equality before the law, it would appear, was based on anunchallengeable interpretation of the opt outs from fundamental rights by the government of the U.K. in respect of the Revised E.U. Treaty and Article36 of the European Convention of Human Rights. (undisclosed written commentsby member states).
This omission of equality before the law, which can now be classified as intentional, since, it fits in with the exclusion of Article 13 of the Convention ("right to an effective remedy for violations by persons acting in an official capacity") from the Human Rights Act. In the UK, emphasis is given to the rule of law.
Without being subjected to the discipline of equality before the law, the rule of law was, as is well documented, successfully applied in South Africa to maintain Apartheid, an internationally condemned system of privileges for all the component parts of the group in power based on inflicting upon an indigenous people the deprivation of their human, intellectual and property rights.
Around the globe, most legislatures are subject to equality before the law. This would mean a legitimate public expectation of a statement of reasons to explain and justify any exceptions. The evidence suggests there is a tacit acceptance, by those acting in an official capacity in the UK, of the convenience of: 'no law is good law ', for those in power.
"The Guide to Legislative Procedures" published by the Cabinet Office,October 2004, reveals at para. 14.6 that consideration will be given to: "the nature of the legislation and the potential impact it may have on Duchy(of Cornwall) operations and / or privileges". Duchy of Cornwall operations and privileges are not itemised.
Lack of information, or silence, clearly prevents the public from determining whether or not they are directly or indirectly the victims of racially discriminating operations or privileges, and therefore, they are effectively blocked from taking action for the repeal or abolition of any alleged illegal operations or privileges, under Article 14 (Compliance) of EU Race Directive 2000/43/EC.
It would appear that the operations and privileges of the Duchy of Cornwall are commercial and constitutional. On behalf of the heir to the throne, they include income from, intestate estates, bona vacantia, the acquisition of the assets of bankrupt companies in Cornwall, (supported by the "rights, property and profits" of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 40 (2g) and exceptions under section 120 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 ); the private right to exercise the King's Writ and Summons of Exchequer and Attachments in Cornwall; the ownership of the Stannaries and foreshore of Cornwall as territorial possessions; (Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858) the exemption from calling elections to the Duchy of Cornwall Council and no obligation to provide affordable housing or cultural support in Cornwall, an operation performed by the Crown Estate in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
The Duchy Estate has achieved the appearance of economic independence through state aid in the form of authority to claim a private income from territorial possessions in Cornwall for the heir to the throne to reinvest in Anglo-Saxon England with the ultimate objective of avoiding the imposition of statutory taxation on the English national majority which would provide an income subject to public accountability as is the case with the Crown Estate.
The feudal legacy of the Duchy of Cornwall was inaugurated by charters of 16th , 17th and 18th March 1337, and confirmed as the only exception in the Civil List Act 1760. It apparently still operates the privilege of the selective application of racial equality rights in order to suppress the national identity of the indigenous Cornish people.
Questions arise in an attempt to establish whether or not the heir to the throne is in fact authorised to oppose Human Rights, a subject on which he has been widely reported.
Are undefined and unwritten operations and privileges, unsupported by publicly stated reasons for their extent and use, evidence of a secret constitution? If so, would that constitute a conspiracy?
Under the title "A sharp little piece of honesty getting under Whitehall's skin" The Sunday Times article of 28th October 2007 reveals that Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police has declared, with regardto his: "oath of allegiance to the Queen,- there were four guiding principles, fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality".
These principles do not appear to be enforceable by the public as a statutory right and sadly, equality before the law is conspicuous by its absence. Thee vidence suggests that equality before the law is officially outlawed as being incompatible with a secret constitution.
May I respectfully enquire as to whether it is nevertheless possible to consider that the four guiding principles of the Assistant Commissioner may constitute sufficient authority for the Devon and Cornwall Police to implement the right of suspects to self-identify? Are the appropriate operational procedures in place to enable individual police officers to faithfully record, and have stored for statistical reference, all declarations of Cornish identity, ethnicity or national minority status that may be affirmed by a member of the public? This would support parallel attempts by other official bodies in Cornwall.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Yours faithfully,
Stannary Information Officer.
Post new comment