In the wake of last week's report on a "new" Tory policy on fishing, Booker has this week taken a wider look at discardingin his column.

The issues are personalised around a good friend of us both, Mick Mahon, a Newlyn fisherman who has done much to bring to light the criminal madness of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. And, after 25 years of living with the lunacy of the policy, Mick has had enough and has decided he will discard no more. Instead, he is "waiving the rules" and landing all the fish he catches. He gives them away to the Fishermen's mission for charity.

View full article here

It should be obvious that any regulation that has an effect opposite to its original Purpose, should not be enforced by the Judiciary. Unfortunately our spineless lickspittles lost all sense of Right and Wrong years ago.

Sandy,
It is quite right that, in the absence of clarity in British (acknowledging that Scottish law differs in some respects, but not this one) legislation, our own judiciary had to interpret this in the light of 'what they believed was Parliament's intention'. This, however, clearly does not have to apply to their interpretation of CFP legislation emanating from the EU, since not only were these fisheries policies not originated, or intended, by our own Parliament, but their enforcement and interpretation is now governed by the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of (In)Justice.

There is absoloutley no point in expecting individual British Judges, whatever their own political inclinations, ( there are still a few principled ones, on both sides, left) to make themselves, ultimately, political hostages to the ECJ.

I am sure that all of us would compete in a poll upon which EU policy was the most inept, costly, damaging or corrupt one, but the CFP and CAP would have to be amongst the foremost of these. It is one of the most damning indictments of the EU Parliament that it has been totally ineffectual in achieving any major revision of either the CFP or the CAP, desoite the half hearted attempts of successive British Governments.

You are effectively saying the judges can do nothing because the power originates from outside this Realm. Thus the Queen can in no way be called Sovereign in this Realm. Thus all those sworn to the Sovereign, from who they should derive their authority, are left shorn of authority.
The Sovereignty of the ECJ is Constitutional fqup that must ultimately be laid at the feet of the Judiciary and their failure to understand the Declaration of Rights.
I would be most interested to know how the Judiciary view their behaviour.

Yes Sandy,
What I am in effect saying is that we no longer a Sovereign State. Our judges can still make rulings, but even if these are upheld by the House of Lords, most, but still not quite all of these judgements can now be overruled or amended by the ECJ.
Equally importantly, our English and Welsh judges (I also, in most cases, refer to Scottish ones) now have to constantly look over their shoulders at the implications of both the ECJ and the E Human Rights legislation when trying to apply our long standing national laws and the ways in which these should be interpreted.
As I know you are well aware there is, or was, an essential constitutional division in Britain between the judiciary and the executive, as a few of our senior judges have recently sought , to little effect, to remind our "Rump Labour Parliament". However, their is no such concept, or even support for such an idea, amongst most of our serving or aspiring MEPs.

In which case I'd very much like to talk to them. There is an unstated constitutional division in the Declaration of Rights, made explicit in its grandson the American Constitution. Civil disobedience, through rioting to rebellion can only be caused by the Judiciary enforcing stupid, brutal laws. However they are sworn to do Right to all manner of persons, and it can never be Right to enforce a wrong law. Thus it is the Judiciary's duty to ride herd on Parliament and to keep it within the Constitution.
Currently we are massively in breach of the Constitution and it would be interesting to officially draw the Sovereign's attention to it, because ultimately it is Her oath to us that has been broken.

Sandy, why don't you write to Buckingham Palace and point this out?

I'd be very interested in HM's reply, or rather the reply of the mouthpiece the bastards force on Her.

It will not be possible to erect in Trafalgar Square, as you suggest, "a monument to mark the passing of our independence".

The eu will not allow it.

I believe there is still a "Right of Audience" with the Sovereign, these things are better done in person don't you think?

I have no idea what the form is and I've never heard of a "Right of Audience". That kind of thing might have been possible in King Alfred's time but I wouldn't imagine it would be possible for an ordinary Joe to get an appointment now, especially to discuss such fundamental matters of State. And even if he could, I'm sure the Palace would want to know his business beforehand so a letter would seem to be as far as most of us could possibly get.

It seems to me The Queen is as much a pawn here as the rest of us. I'd love to know what the Duke of Edinburgh's take on all this is. I bet he's frothing at the mouth.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem"

How's this for a deeply simple Constitutional improvement?
We understand, of course, that the Sovereign should treat Parliament's suggestions seriously, very seriously. However if the fools in Parliament are not in touch with the people then nothing stops Her Majesty suggesting a referendum to her Subjects as to whether she should assent. Since it was the People who told her to listen to Parliament, it's only right that she should check with the people that it's all working as intended.
A hint that She might ask the People about her assent to the Lisbon stitchup would have cleared the air beautifully.

I like it.