tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post8103856772332642229..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: 2014: You Can't Stand As a Conservative!Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16076140653718770432007-10-20T14:55:00.000+01:002007-10-20T14:55:00.000+01:00PoohbearSorry I borrowed the pot because EU-yore a...Poohbear<BR/><BR/>Sorry I borrowed the pot because EU-yore and REU and two-jags piglet wanted to re-distribute its contents (the dirty leftists!)<BR/><BR/>You may have it back soon to stick on your head, where it's normally kept!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-58502859341250983092007-10-20T13:13:00.000+01:002007-10-20T13:13:00.000+01:00There's nothing in the Reform Treaty about banning...There's nothing in the Reform Treaty about banning candidates standing under UK party names. <BR/><BR/>As for judges, interpretation and all that: there is a clear difference of approach, although in my experience there is a tendency to exaggerate it, made worse by committed eurosceptics talking it up for effect. <BR/><BR/>It's very simplistic to suggest that judges in England are "simply bound to apply the literal words of legislation". It's absolutely true that statutory interpretation here starts from the words of statute themselves as the only evidence of Parliament's intention. In that sense it's a literal textual exercise. But applying written laws always, inevitably, involves some kind of interpretative exercise, simply because no legislator can ever imagine every possible set of facts that comes before the courts. Over the years judges have developed a series of interpretative techniques for resolving disputes about how legislation applies to the case before them - they avoid literalism to the point of absurdity, for instance, consider the "mischief" the legislation is aimed at, and recently have developed a technique in effect preventing ministers from misleading Parliament about how departments will apply laws (Pepper v Hart). <BR/><BR/>The European Court of Justice has obviously had to develop its own interpretative techniques, like every other court. It's adopted a less literal approach than UK courts for the obvious reason that the legislation it's applying doesn't exist in one language version. Literalism really would be impossible. On top of that, EU legislation isn't (as here) drafted by experts in an attempt to achieve ministers' exact instructions, but is cobbled together in negotiations. Nor is it any good looking for anyone's "intention", since the negotiators may well have had diverse, conflicting intentions. <BR/><BR/>The approach it's adopted is "purposive" interpretation, long established in international law, whereby you work out what the underlying purpose of a law is and then interpret it in a way that meets that purpose. It's sometimes called a "teleological" approach but frankly I think that makes it sound much more part of some grand federalist design than it actually is. <BR/><BR/>A good example of purposive interpretation is <A HREF="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Rechercher&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=C-304/02&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100" REL="nofollow">the French fish case</A> in which the word "or" was in effect read as "and/or".Carl Gardner, Head of Legalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623620299558039098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-74488481305273324772007-10-20T12:16:00.000+01:002007-10-20T12:16:00.000+01:00tapestryI'm a bit lost as to where you stand re th...tapestry<BR/><BR/>I'm a bit lost as to where you stand re the Treaty - you seem to be suggesting our red-lines are even stronger than we thought.<BR/><BR/> The "teleological" nature of EU law (I still think judges back home have a "teleological" streak aka common sense) surely is a further defence of Brown's "red lines", since any future dispute over, for instance one of our opt-outs would end up before EU Judges. If they were "teleological"they would refer to the "original purpose behind" the "opt-out", and find therefore in our favour, since it is obvious that the "opt-out" was intended to protect our national interest.<BR/><BR/>As long as this type of scrutiny and debate doesn't fade, I think the beaurocrats might well be held in check, so, sensible intelligent Euro-sceptics should in my view carry on banging on! (Leave the rascist element out, though, for everyone's sake)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-19776864603823504642007-10-20T07:57:00.000+01:002007-10-20T07:57:00.000+01:00Whether it's true or not, it highlights perfectly ...Whether it's true or not, it highlights perfectly the old catch-22 for many anti-Europeans.<BR/><BR/>One of the main problems with the European Union is its lack of true democratic legitimacy. Partly this is related to the fact that most people (certainly in the UK) don't vote on the policies and views of the proposed MEPs but on their opinions of the UK politics situation at the time.<BR/><BR/>Divorcing the national parties from the European parties are the most obvious solution to that problem. Let people know what they're really voting for.<BR/><BR/>But of course any such moves in this direction undermine a plank of the anti-European argument so will never be favoured by anti-Europeans (as opposed, potentially, to simple Eurosceptics).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89635296393432930012007-10-20T03:00:00.000+01:002007-10-20T03:00:00.000+01:00there is the law of Parliament - Statute Law - of ...there is the law of Parliament - Statute Law - of which the judges are compelled to apply. They cannot 'reinterpret' but only apply.<BR/><BR/>and there is the common law, which applies where there are no relevant statutes.<BR/><BR/>the common law is judge-created law, where judges are bound by the decisions of their predecessors. They can find that the case before them has different circumstances and so the old cases need applying to different circumstances.<BR/><BR/>european law is not the same as either statute or common law systems. It is teleological. as i described.Tapestryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267094484651413428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13173569705394837712007-10-20T01:12:00.000+01:002007-10-20T01:12:00.000+01:00I think we have to be a bit more clear here on the...I think we have to be a bit more clear here on the matter of parties and groups in the EP. For example, the British Labour Party is a member of the Party of European Socialists, and it would be fair enough to include this information in European elections. The Conservative Party on the other hand is NOT a member of an European party, the EPP-ED being a "grouping" of parties, not a party in itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-58938102912124251292007-10-20T00:16:00.000+01:002007-10-20T00:16:00.000+01:00anon isn`t that sophistry? You are saying that jud...anon isn`t that sophistry? You are saying that judges apply law by reference to precedent but thats because the law confronts the infinite variables of life and it is the effort to dicover what law is applicable.<BR/>The effort surely , is to discover the right law ,not to imagine what you think those who wrote it might have meant but did not write. <BR/><BR/>I may be wrong butI am not convinced there is not a distinction here if there is ,it is exceedingly important. I have just watched Millipede slithering out of questions before the parliamentary Scrutiny Commitee. If words might be made to appear less important than they are it is quite clear he would use that factNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-80461688508068576792007-10-19T21:43:00.000+01:002007-10-19T21:43:00.000+01:00anonymous, a British or common law judge has to ap...<I>anonymous, a British or common law judge has to apply the exact words of the statute to the circumstances before him. He cannot ignore them, or override them.</I><BR/><BR/>Err, no. Firstly there is no "British" law. There is the law of England and Wales and the law of Northern Ireland - both Common Law jurisdictions where the judges are bound to precedent (but may reinterpret precedent)<BR/><BR/>Then there is Scotland where Roman law applies and judges are bound to interpret the exact words of statute law. Though, of course, words may mean different things and so the law can evolve.<BR/><BR/>Tapestry - you are talking rubbish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59252183526192481572007-10-19T19:29:00.000+01:002007-10-19T19:29:00.000+01:00I have heard of this for a long time. At some stag...I have heard of this for a long time. At some stage "national" parties will not be eligible to stand.<BR/><BR/>Further, parties not supporting the principles of the EU will not be able to stand in these or ANY elections IIRC as such parties will be declared illegal.<BR/><BR/>If it is not due to be law, can you imagine the EU NOT wanting it?Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-76948138673862158102007-10-19T18:31:00.000+01:002007-10-19T18:31:00.000+01:00I too have heard this story. If true (and I have n...I too have heard this story. If true (and I have no doubt that it is), it is yet another nail in the coffin of being independent and British.<BR/><BR/>The Tories, of course, have nothing positive to say on it, nor can they do anything about it, because they are powerless and suck up to Europe anyway. Remember who first took us in, and remember who signed up to Maastricht. The good old Conservative party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27783558581228919812007-10-19T17:13:00.000+01:002007-10-19T17:13:00.000+01:00So if this ceding of more and more power to the EU...So if this ceding of more and more power to the EU is just nasty Eurosceptic myth, how come our Westminster MPs now get three months holiday a year because "We are just not doing anything at the moment" ?Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445624135697167219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-32888676870950845562007-10-19T16:34:00.000+01:002007-10-19T16:34:00.000+01:00At least it would be honest. And your lot would h...At least it would be honest. And your lot would have to stand for the EPP-ED, because that is what they are, and always will be.<BR/><BR/>Yours is, after all, the party of the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty; so your only problem with the EPP-ED is that it is not quite federalist enough for you.<BR/><BR/>People who don't want to be in a party like that should leave the Tories. And people who want to be in a serious party at all should not join UKIP.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41383439296098476192007-10-19T16:29:00.000+01:002007-10-19T16:29:00.000+01:00anonymous, a British or common law judge has to ap...anonymous, a British or common law judge has to apply the exact words of the statute to the circumstances before him. He cannot ignore them, or override them.<BR/><BR/>A European judge can. By saying that the creators of the original law intended the law to bring about certain results, he can interpret the law on the basis that it achieves the intended results.<BR/><BR/>A British judge could not disqualify a political party from entering into an election, if voters wanted to vote for it. A European judge could do so, by stating that 'it is the role of the political parties to promote the role of the EU to the European people' - approximately the words in the Treaties that will permit ECJ judges to prevent the Conservatives or Labour or anyone else who is not operating at European level, from taking part in EU elections.Tapestryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267094484651413428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2370173254553183342007-10-19T16:25:00.000+01:002007-10-19T16:25:00.000+01:00No matter, this is the last British government any...No matter, this is the <A HREF="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/10/last-british-government.html" REL="nofollow">last British government</A> anyway.Yak40https://www.blogger.com/profile/10391635243252561168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20556634215427677272007-10-19T15:55:00.000+01:002007-10-19T15:55:00.000+01:00Astro-turf lawnmower - nothing wrong with that in ...Astro-turf lawnmower - nothing wrong with that in the slightest. Which is precisely why it's not being changed...<BR/><BR/>It really is remarkable how quick people are to believe these things.<BR/><BR/>A statement about the EU's intentions coming from the Commission or other EU body? Shouts of bias are cacophonous.<BR/><BR/>A statement about the EU coming from a political party set up purely to oppose EU membership? Instantly believed as Gospel truth.<BR/><BR/>Scepticism is a healthy state in which to live - especially when it comes to politics and politicians. So how come so few Eurosceptics are actually sceptical?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42067449337034251802007-10-19T15:36:00.000+01:002007-10-19T15:36:00.000+01:00Dear tigger,I love honey but not that much! I care...Dear tigger,<BR/><BR/>I love honey but not that much! I care nothing for what the ZANULAB muppets may do to muddy the waters!<BR/>All I want is the democratic chance to decide whether I am an EU citizen or a British subject and I will, like everybody else' listen to both sides and then make my informed choice! Trust the people and trust in democracy brcause its better than the alternative!<BR/><BR/>PS Hmmm HONEY? now wheres that pot gone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3797815575281604872007-10-19T15:20:00.000+01:002007-10-19T15:20:00.000+01:00It is true and we must stop the iniqituous Europea...It is true and we must stop the iniqituous European Constitution.Mountjoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17385482147330173836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-6280049104219694742007-10-19T15:06:00.000+01:002007-10-19T15:06:00.000+01:00Good god every stone you turn over has another fou...Good god every stone you turn over has another foul infestation breeding under it. I can see why Brown cannot have a referendum, its the information that comes out , for example:<BR/><BR/>ID cards. <BR/><BR/>As you know, these are unpopular in the UK, and we haven't had them since WWII. The EU has decided that all EU citizens MUST have ID cards. therefore Britain will be forced to introduce them. The Labour government, realising the difficulty of forcing a FOREIGN ID card system on its own people against the wishes of the British people, decided that the best solution was to pre-empt the EU directive and come up with its own ID Card scheme crafted in its own image. <BR/>Many EU laws now forced onto us under Maastricht are effectively "covered-up" by the government pre-emptively introducing its own legislation on the same issues - which is a key reason why Labour have introduced so many new laws.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That explains an awful lot for me .<BR/><BR/>On this Party matter if Tapestry says it is so that’s good enough for me . He is always reasonable and not by any means an extremist. Every time the truth emerges it is worse than you ever dreamt it could be , what is a reasonable and balanced person supposed to do ? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Its interesting that Labout still reagrd concern over the EU and immigraton as an electoral defacit <BR/>It no longer isNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-68903936192910146712007-10-19T14:45:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:45:00.000+01:00If I want to stand for a decidedly non-Europewide ...If I want to stand for a decidedly non-Europewide party, "Little England" or "London First" or whatever, who the hell are the EU to tell me I can't?<BR/><BR/>Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the traditional system where people stand under whatever banner they please and then the electorate picks which they like best. What's wrong with that?Astro-Turf Lawnmowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131914904410009882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49911365813418583652007-10-19T14:41:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:41:00.000+01:00It is of course absolute rubbish.A classic Euromyt...It is of course absolute rubbish.<BR/><BR/>A classic Euromyth. <BR/><BR/>Next they will be making up stories about the queen being taken off our passport.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54765223482373722332007-10-19T14:33:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:33:00.000+01:00TapestryYou've been confused by your lecturer, who...Tapestry<BR/>You've been confused by your lecturer, who was possible jaded by experience by his reference to the "broad brush".<BR/><BR/>All British legal decisions use reasonablesness as their basis. Reference to the "intention" or "original purpose" as a component of that doesn't preclude clear definitions.<BR/><BR/>People who draft leases, for instance, expect that future unforeseen events will be taken care of in future court cases by the application of reason, which includes reference to "probable intention" of an original clause. That doesn't lead them to inserting vague language with the thought that it will be interpretted favourably (to one side or the other) by a Judge in future.<BR/><BR/>There's no relevant difference in European Law. You suggest that there would be no recourse should a perverse interpretation be slipped through later. That isn't realistic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-10689199875783432772007-10-19T14:23:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:23:00.000+01:0075% want a referendum on the treaty? Or on members...75% want a referendum on the treaty? Or on membership?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Poohbear, are you hoping to be given extra honey by Labour strategists by trying to couch the debate in terms of "In or OUT"?<BR/> <BR/>Do you know the likely out-come of an "IN or OUT" referendum? Any figures? Or just wrong figures designed to split the Tories?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2648654155791948482007-10-19T14:19:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:19:00.000+01:00The technical word for the way European law works ...The technical word for the way European law works is teleological, I was told by a Lecturer of Law who writes on CH occasionally.<BR/><BR/>The EU only needs broadbrush phrases which indicate their intention, without defining any specific measures. These can be worked out, interpreted and applied later, as the oportunity permits.<BR/><BR/>People who search through Treaties looking for clearcut proposals to get upset about or challenge will be disappointed.<BR/><BR/>The intentions of the EU are clear enough. <BR/><BR/>It's a great system for confusing the Brits, as our legal system requires specific words before anything has the force of law.Tapestryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267094484651413428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-68412210679534888772007-10-19T14:14:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:14:00.000+01:00David Boothroyd seems to be confused between Europ...David Boothroyd seems to be confused between European Parliamentary Groups and European Political Parties.<BR/><BR/>The Labour Party is a member of the Party of European Socialists (and, I understand, has in the past stood on a PES manifesto).<BR/><BR/>The Conservative Party is not a member of the European People's Party and I don't think that the Ind-Dem Group has ever registered as a European political party and so UKIP aren't a member of any European political party.<BR/><BR/>The European Parliament (and Commission) certainly wants European Parties to contest European elections on pan-European lists but there isn't anything in the constitution to make this compulsory. European Parties will just be automatically registered in each country in the EU.Mike Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016813232626327117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22940764004873100392007-10-19T14:05:00.000+01:002007-10-19T14:05:00.000+01:00The ZANULAB Trolls are a bit desperate these days ...The ZANULAB Trolls are a bit desperate these days arnt they? Are they having nightmares about P45s and dole queues?<BR/>75% of the british people want a referendum at least and the trolls are trying to say that the Tories would lose a GE on that basis? Oh dear, the Labrats must be very nervous now that their deep thinking glorious leader has sold the UK down the river without the promised referendum! Perhaps the Smith Institute will give you all jobs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com