I know about 'a legal right' etc, and I hope you're not taking a patronising tone in explaining it. What I am contesting is whether or not these legal rights and entitlements actually exist outside the control of Parliament or whether you have just imagined them. I am questioning their status, not the meaning of words.

I cannot possibly see how this is anything other than a matter of opinion, indeed all legal interpretation involves some element of opinion. It may be your opinion that the law constrains Parliament, but it is mine that Paliament is sovereign and can as a result pass any legislation lawfully. Time for a quote I think, Oxford University no less:

"It is generally accepted that the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty means that there are no legal limits upon the legislative competence of Parliament. This, in turn, is usually understood to entail a positive and a negative aspect of the doctrine: Positively, the doctrine implies that Parliament can legislate on any matter whatsoever and in any way whatsoever irrespective of how morally obnoxious, politically inexpedient, inefficacious, or socially divisive that legislation might appear to some. Negatively, the doctrine implies that there is no other legal authority competent to legislate for Britain in competition with Parliament and no legal authority with power to impose legal limits upon Parliament or to subject its legislation to scrutiny with a view to disqualifying it as unconstitutional or invalid. And this generally accepted view is wholly in accord with Dicey's statement that Parliament has "under the English constitution the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" [pp 39-40]."

Parliament is simply an evolution of an absolute monarchy. From the original doctrine that "the King's word is law" to, after much procrastination, "Parliament's word is law". Other countries which have written constitutions, and that is a different system to ours, have a legal constraint on their legislative branches which stop them doing certain things, for example ratifying treaties without a referendum as in Ireland. We have no such explicit bars in this country. Yet these Rights are supposed to provide such a bar. It seems to me that they only exist in the minds of individuals, and their breach would likewise not have any real or effective personality.

The reason I continue to mention historical examples is because of the posterity which Rights seem to claim for themselves. Take the original example of the monarchy. If we were to abolish it now then, if there were no unanimity, which we know from this board there is not, then that would be an 'illegal' act. The subsequent establishment of a republic would then also be an illegal act. Presumably, as long as someone wanted the restoration of the monarchy it would remain illegal. It would be rather strange if it was illegal only for a couple of years and then stopped being so, it would have to continue to be notionally illegal for as long as someone considered themselves to have been wronged. All we therefore need is one crackpot who favours the re-establishment of the Roman Empire and then the whole constitutional system, and the English Rights themselves, would become 'illegal'. This is not a sensible way in which to operate 'law'. It seems to me to have a character more suited to what might be called 'pleasant thoughts'.

It is further interesting to note that there is no effective way of enforcing Rights. This is because the courts have no authority to question the proceedings of Parliament. I notice you do not answer my enquiry about a recent court precedent. So, these Rights have no effective way of controlling Parliament and cannot be enforced through the courts to stop legislation which breaches them. They are at best 'guiding principles' which those making decisions might want to take note of. But these principles could also be described as 'moral rights', 'commonsense' or 'fairness'. They are no more and no less than what some people might think are good ideas, and to invoke terms such as 'unlawful' or 'illegal' when discussing their breach is to cross the boundary into legal and constitutional territory of which Parliament is the supreme guardian.

Consider a further example. It is possible that, in the coming year, the Lords and Commons will agree a Bill to allow juries information of past offences and restrict the protection afforded to defendants from double jeopardy. It would be my opinion that as the sovereign controller of law, Parliament could do such a thing without question. I can only assume, as these things are not defined clearly, that such a move would breach Rights, and individuals would have to agree to give up their protection from double jeopardy in order to be lawfully deprived of it.

So, would The Queen stop such a measure going ahead? According to your grandiose and glorious comments of before, She would not only have the power, but the duty to do such a thing. I fear that in the reality of the constitutional system, Rights would not be considered and would have no bearing on the decision that She would make. An Act making those changes could not be challenged in any court of the United Kingdom. Yet you would claim that it would be a breach of the law. It seems to me that you would like such a thing to be true, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Sorry, that should have been in 'This England'.

If someone could delete this topic, it would be helpful.

The quotation you have come up with is of interest and tends to suggest that the British Parliament (by which you seem to mean the just the Houses of Lords and Commons) could do anything it wishes.

This could include, according to that doctrine, abolishing itself, or placing the United Kingdom compleletly under foreign jurisdiction.

I think it was Paul Birch who pointed out that the definition of 'Parliament' includes the monarchy, with which I would respectfully agree. That clearly excludes, for example, Parliament abolishing the monarchy.

Did Parliament have the 'right' to place more and more of British jurisdiction and administration under the control of the Europeana Union? Not if the Declaration and Bill of Rights mean anything. Nor if the Coronation Oath - an oath of dedication to the British people - means anything.

Every British monarch promises by a solemn oath sworn on the Bible to govern us, the British people, "according to our laws and customs".

There is likely to be a significant Court challenge by way of judicial review on these very points, due I think on 17 December, and mounted by a consortium including the editor of 'This England' (and member of Active Resistance to Metrication) Roy Faiers, the Democratic Party Leader, Geoff Southall, Freedom Association campaigner Norris McWhirter, and various constitutional lawyers led by Lionel Bell Q.C. - all of this funded by generous donations from thousands of British people.

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

One of the most fascinating - and alarming - developments in recent years in the United Kingdom has been the granting of huge 'rights' over the governance of Britain to a collection of second-rate and third-rate judges from all around Europe, of whom nobody has ever heard - namely the European Court of Human Rights.

There is not a shred of accountability as to how they are appointed, the peoples of Europe have no say in their appointment, and they do not have to account for the havoc their decisions cause. The very existence of this Court and its authority over every one of us is a denial of the rights of British people.

This Court has been more prominent in Britain since the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into law on 2 October 2000.

This body, inter alia:

* Fails to guarantee our rights to jury trial, 'habeas corpus' and various other judicial rights, since Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights merely guarantees the vague phrase 'a right to a fair trial within a reasonable period of time'. Absolutley no mention of jury trial; no mention of the right of British people to be charged at a public hearing within 24 hours of arrest or released

* Overrules sensible national lews, e.g. it has persistently overruled the reasonable obscenity laws of this country, and other European countries, by claiming that the human right to 'freedom of expression' allows even the most depraved, sadistic and violent material to be transmitted by way of TV, films and video (while by contrast, the European Commission on Human Rights said last year that Dave Stephens, the 'rebel butcher', was not allowed 'freedom of expression' to sell by the pound since the E.U.'s laws to ban Imperial measures were a reasonble exception to the principle of freedom of expression!)

* Benefits evil-doers. Among those recently to benefit from its decisions have been:

- Militant Islamic terrorists with records of murder - because they might be 'inhumanely treated' if deported

- Convicted murderers let out of prison early, since the Human Rights Court held that prison rules to punish crimes committed while in prison were deemed a 'breach of human rights'

- Murderers on a life sentence who will now get out early, as our Home Secretary no longer has the power to say when they should be released

- Drug dealers who have been allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains because the prosecution can't prove that their fortunes were made from drug-dealing

* Tells the British army what to do, e.g. ordered that women and homosexuals must be admitted to all ranks of the armed forces despite military advice to the contrary, says that Court martials are a breach of human rights etc.

* Fails to guarantee the right to freedom of speech, one of the most precious rights the British people have acquired, as recent cases in Britain - and the arrest of Robin Page for remarks made at a country fair - clearly show.


In so many ways, the Court of Human Rights is actually *extinguishing* our rights

I hope I haven't accidently started a new topic, but anyway:

On the sovereignty question, it has been intruiging me recently as to whether Parliament could abolish itself. My personal opinion (and I am not a lawyer) is that it indeed could as the only constraint on it authority is that it may not bind its successors. In that case it would have no successors, so they could not be bound. Alternatively, it could be said to be binding them by not allowing them to exist. Similar arguments apply as respects foreign jurisdiction. Can Parliament abolish the United Kingdom? I believe that it can.

I fully understand the triumvirate Parliament, and that is what I meant by my references. This is witnessed by my later mention of "Lords and Commons".

Parliament can abolish the monarchy in the same way that Parliament can reform the House of Lords and agree the Parliament Acts.

Yes Parliament did have the right to pass the 1972 Act. This is not in conflict with the other provisions because it is by virtue of that Act that Community institutions hold power.

I shall look forward to the judicial review you mention and now I recall that that was where this whole topic started. I seem to have got lost somewhere along the way.

I have one thing to say on the ECHR: it is a matter of international law and does not concern sovereignty.

RE: "it is matter of international law and does not concern sovereignty"

ANSWER : On the contrary, international law very much concerns sovereignty, or to use a less emotive term than sovereignty, 'the ability to control and run one's own affairs'.

To take some examples:

The International Criminal Court has the power to arrest or arraign citizens of any country in the world, on the vague grounds of 'crimes against humanity' however that term might be defined in future. That is why the United States is putting up resistance against it - because under the U.S. Constitution, its citizens have certain guaranteed rights to fair trial. It doesn't want its military tried by a Court that gives them fewer rights than those laid down in the U.S. Contitution.

The International Criminal Court is not accountable to anyone, is judge and jury in its own cause, and does not have jury trial, to name but three of many of its judicial deficiences.

Similarly, the World Trade Organisation's rules include rules wich directly interfere with the sovereignty of individual states.

Arguably the Interntional Monetary Fund does the same by laying down onerous terms for its financial aid, including virtually directing the financial running of the countries it assists.

Both the European Union and its European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and the Council of Europe with its European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, have substantial and increasing powers over a nation's ability to control and run its own affairs.

Very soon, the European Arrest Warrant will entitle a minor Spanish, Greek or Italian official, for example, to demand the immediate arrest and detention of a British citizen living in Britain on suspicion of committing one of 32 categories of crime as now defined by the E.U. - or they'll be able to send in one of their EUROPOL Police Officers who carries with him the distinct advantage that he can't be prosecuted for any crime *he* commits whilst on duty, including murder

RE: "it is matter of international law and does not concern sovereignty"

ANSWER : On the contrary, international law very much concerns sovereignty, or to use a less emotive term than sovereignty, 'the ability to control and run one's own affairs'.

To take some examples:

The International Criminal Court has the power to arrest or arraign citizens of any country in the world, on the vague grounds of 'crimes against humanity' however that term might be defined in future. That is why the United States is putting up resistance against it - because under the U.S. Constitution, its citizens have certain guaranteed rights to fair trial. It doesn't want its military tried by a Court that gives them fewer rights than those laid down in the U.S. Contitution.

The International Criminal Court is not accountable to anyone, is judge and jury in its own cause, and does not have jury trial, to name but three of many of its judicial deficiences.

Similarly, the World Trade Organisation's rules include rules wich directly interfere with the sovereignty of individual states.

Arguably the Interntional Monetary Fund does the same by laying down onerous terms for its financial aid, including virtually directing the financial running of the countries it assists.

Both the European Union and its European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and the Council of Europe with its European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, have substantial and increasing powers over a nation's ability to control and run its own affairs.

Very soon, the European Arrest Warrant will entitle a minor Spanish, Greek or Italian official, for example, to demand the immediate arrest and detention of a British citizen living in Britain on suspicion of committing one of 32 categories of crime as now defined by the E.U. - or they'll be able to send in one of their EUROPOL Police Officers who carries with him the distinct advantage that he can't be prosecuted for any crime *he* commits whilst on duty, including murder

I would have deleted the thread as requested; however, I did not get there in time and it appears to have developed.

Can't be helped I suppose.

As far as I know, the treaty on the ICC is incorporated in the UK, whereas the ECHR is not.

I think the position on the ICC is this:

The British Government has signed up to it in principle, and thus become one of the 60-plus nations needed for the ICC to assert its authority. It should be noted that the ICC claims that if 60 nations sign up to it, it will have acquired jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of all the other 130 or so sovereign nations which have not - and thus to arrest any individual on the planet for 'crimes against humanity'.

When one pauses just for a moment to consider this, is it not breathtaking in its audacity?

I believe the U.K. Parliament has yet to approve placing British citizens under ICC jurisdiction and to give legislative efect to being bound by the ICC's decisions - but I may be wrong about this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECHR: Britain signed up to 99% of this, I think, in 1950. It has always been the right, since then, of British citizens to petition the European Court of Human Rights if they thought their government had violated their 'human rights'

But on 2 October 2000, the 1998 Human Rights Act came into force and effectively incorporated all of the European Convention into British law, thus (a) vastly increasing the scope for all sorts of people, many of them criminals as it happens, to exploit its vague terms and (b) providing a huge £60 million-a-year boost to human rights lawyers, including Cherie Blair, most of whose income nowadays is derived from representing unemployed litigants in human rights cases.

Essentially, *any* British law (or for that matter any law of a sovereign country anywhere in Europe) can now be undone if judges in the European Court of Human Rights say it violates a 'human right' guaranteed by the Convention.

Another intriguing possibility, which has been actively canvassed, is that European Court of Human Rights judges may one day rule the Act of Settlement 1701 illegal (which provides, inter alia, for a Protestant monarch in Britain) on the ground that it 'unfairly discriminates' against Roman Catholics and thus violates a Roman Catholic's right to be eligible to be, or to marry, the monarch ('religious discrimination')

The ICC Act was passed in 2001, but I do not know if it has been commenced yet.

Obviously the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the convention rights, but not the convention itself as the power it confers is with the British courts. However they only have the power to make 'declarations of incompatibility', the Act did not change the principle that courts must apply Acts.

{ have one thing to say on the ECHR: it is a matter of international law and does not concern sovereignty.}

I don't know how it works in Britain, or anywhere else in the Old World, but in the U.S. international treaties have the same weight as an Act of Congress, and thus are subject to the Constitution. Any treaty or agreement that conflicts with the constitution is not binding on the United States, and all attempts to enforce them are a breach of U.S. sovereignty.

Here the Crown has an absolute right to both sign and ratify treaties for the United Kingdom. Those treaties will then have full force in international law governing the relationship between the UK and the other party or parties.

Under Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, however, Parliament must agree to any change in the law, and a treaty can have no effect on the domestic position unless Parliament agrees to incorporate it into UK law. Thus the EC Treaties are not simply an international agreement, they are part of UK law.

Contrary to popular belief, Parliament does not 'ratify' treaties, but it may require its consent before a treaty is ratified, such as any treaty increasing the powers of the European Parliament. The question as to whether the monarch's power to ratify treaties is a 'Right of Englishmen' is another matter.

The clear difference between the US and UK in this matter demonstrates the difference that a single written constitution makes.

I hope this is of some help,

If you wish to respond to an existing topic thread without creating a new one, click on the hyperlink (underlined text at the end of the page) which says "Respond to this message".

If you click on the link which says "Post a new report" on the page showing the list of topics, then a new topic will be created.

Whenever you do respond though (either way) you do have the option of typing something in the "Message Title" box. In the event that you are creating a new topic thread whatever you type there will be displayed as the title of the whole topic, if you are responding to an existing topic whatever you type there will overwrite the original topic title.

If you don't type anything, in the former case it will appear as "Untitled", in the latter case it will re-iterate the original topic title.

Sorry (to everyone) if this is confusing but it isn't easy to phrase coherent in user-friendly language.

Thanks Pip, I know about the different functions, and I certainly never went near 'post new report', I was responding to 'This England' and suddenly I had created a new topic.

As for titles, I know I have the option of titling but the boards I have used in the past mainly haven't had that feature, and personally I prefer just to keep one title of the topic rather than having to think up new ones.