Why not just admit it?

The Government will establish a commission to consider a UK Bill of Rights that would give British courts supremacy over European legislation.

You can\’t. Not without repealing the European Communities Act 1972 you can\’t.

5 thoughts on “Why not just admit it?”

  1. Meh. What kind of a Bill Of Rights would a ruling class committee come up with anyway? Not much of one, I’d imagine.

    A much better strategy would be to go to the EU and demand the removal of all the qualifying clauses from the ECHR. Everything after the first two sentences of Article 10 for instance. Or Part 2 of Article 11. And so on.

  2. Repeal the latter and the former is of even less use.

    Especially as it would be “rights” and not “freedoms”.

    The sorts of mutton-headed “rights” one sees people jabbering for are basically about redistribution of wealth.

    “The right to education” in fact means “The State can put a gun against your head to pay for someone else to get a free education”.

    A Bill of Freedoms would be

    “The freedom to seek an education”, i.e. some nutter does not have the right to use the law to prevent you from delivering or receiving it. Not, mind, forcing one to deliver it, for Freedom of Association is far superior to freedom to seek education.

  3. ‘Not without repealing the European Communities Act 1972 you can’t.’

    I think that is what we call ‘an effin’ good start’

  4. It only says they will consider.

    They will consider, and it due course they will say it’s impossible.

    But “due course” will be such a long time that people will have forgotten all about it. Or, perhaps more likely, the coalition will have disintegrated by then, so it won’t matter.

  5. No, easier than that.

    The Commission can conclude that the ECHR is an excellent codification of the civil liberties that English and Scots common law had come to grant by the modern era, as written down by many of the UK’s best lawyers in the 1940s when seeking to spread our enlightened liberalism to the rest of the world (after that decade demonstrated the flaws of non-liberal governments on the left and the right), and that the ECHR therefore represents the ideal British Bill Of Rights in its own right.

    This has the twin advantages of a) solving the constitutional problem b) being completely 100% true.

    The people who lie that the ECHR is in some mysterious way an erosion of civil liberties, and the people who hate the ECHR because it guarantees due process to accused and convicted criminals (rather than just making them outlaws to whom we can do whatever we like without sanction of law) wouldn’t be happy. Good – they’re arseholes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *