Now admittedly I'm no lawyer, and I also have no experiencing in writing treaties, but I keep on reading that in order to produce a wording in any EU Treaty that exempts Britain from say the Charter of Fundamnetal Rights that cannot be challenged is nearly impossible. So, can someone, anyone, explain to me how or why a clause that says "X does not apply to Y under any circumstances ever" is not suitable?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Search Dizzy Thinks
Dizzy reads
- Ben Brogan
- Big Brother Watch
- Boulton & Co
- Coffee House
- Conservative Home
- Dan Hannan
- Donal Blaney
- Douglas Carswell MP
- FT Westminster
- Guido Fawkes
- Hoby Cartoons
- Iain Dale
- Keep Thinking Butch
- Nadine Dorries
- Nothing British
- Old Holborn
- Paul Waugh
- Political Betting
- Politics Home
- Quizzicalgaze
- Red Box
- Shane Greer
- Sky.com/News Blog
- Tory Radio
Not Lefties
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(140)
- November (2)
- October (3)
- August (1)
- July (3)
- June (2)
- May (14)
- April (5)
- March (43)
- February (25)
- January (42)
-
►
2010
(658)
- December (50)
- November (56)
- October (21)
- September (34)
- August (32)
- July (44)
- June (51)
- May (69)
- April (87)
- March (92)
- February (62)
- January (60)
-
►
2009
(1050)
- December (60)
- November (60)
- October (65)
- September (78)
- August (85)
- July (85)
- June (96)
- May (119)
- April (104)
- March (115)
- February (86)
- January (97)
-
►
2008
(1023)
- December (71)
- November (106)
- October (72)
- September (109)
- August (68)
- July (76)
- June (51)
- May (102)
- April (83)
- March (87)
- February (101)
- January (97)
9 comments:
Because Dizzy there is no money in it for lawyers. Lawyers draft treaties and make money. Lawyers challenge treaties, and make money. Treaties are signed by politicians many of whom are lawyers.
What do you call 100 lawyers chained together on the seabed? A good start.
Old I know, but so much of wisdom is.
Politicians can never utter simple words that do not have ambiguity attached to them it gives them no scope to lie or cheat.
Slight misintepretation of my point here. Yes of course lawyers exists to make money etc etc. And of course politicians like ambiguity. Hwoever, breifing the MSM and having them repeat the lie that it's impossible is bollocks.
Agreed. But lawyerly bollocks.
You think that the ECJ could not find some 'wiggle room' in that?
"Favoured nations"
One of the ECJ's prime duties is to promote ever closer union.
The simple way of making this "Charter" non-binding would be to delete it entirely. There is no need. If a particular nation wants more "rights" then they can vote for their parliament to enact them.
How about:
"Nej, nä, no, nein, non, nei, nope, nix, ne, ei, oxi, niet, hayır - we do not want this bullshit"
Lawery enough?
IANA (European) L, but by its nature - a treaty of fundamental rights ought to be an entrenched piece of law that can only be superceded on a clause by clause basis (or, indeed, repealed) by a special super-majority vote designed to protect it.
Most countries have constitutions which are entrenched in this way. The UK, alas, doesn't. It's constitution consists of three words - "Parliament is sovereign" - which is one reason (the pathetic indifference of a bloated, ignorant and hopelessly educated electorate and the subversion of Parliament's independence by Prime Ministerial patronage are a couple of others) why our fundamental rights are everywhere threatened under this authoritarian Government.
Insult lawyers all you like. Had you worked harder at school you could be showing us sharks how to do it without being the bad people you all accuse us of being! B^) Bear in mind than only hopeless lawyers ever go into parliament. Decent lawyers couldn't afford the massive pay cut.
Post a Comment