Are the Prince's speeches written by the FCO too?

Oh, me, me me! Can I do it? Please.

Even though the Queen may not in practice be able formally to withhold Royal Assent (though, come to think of it, what has changed since Queen Anne actually did do that in 1707 ??) surely she could let her misgivings be known - if she has any that is.

It would be interesting to know how Mrs Windsor regards the Coronation Oath she made in 1953. Does it count for anything at all or was it just words? If the latter then it would seem there's no one minding the constitutional shop ...

Great answer. If true it would be wonderful — the only power bloggers have is their arguments and in a proper democracy those should be all that is needed to fell the beast. It would be a very healthy sign indeed.

But no, Sandy, I have consulted the setter and he tells me that he had something a little more direct in mind.



Dave, You're clearly destined for great things. That reveals an IQ at the genius level.

Yes, he does seem a little under the weather. Perhaps a few heavy-duty 'clinical' sessions with the Duke would sort him out. A fillip for his tired spirit maybe?

I hope so. It would be a shame if he had to be admitted for a coronation bypass.

It seems the tactics are clear now, continue the ratification process everywhere, to get 26 signed up and then use that lever to shame/scare the Irish into voteing yes next time.

This is vital as the EU is exposed as of now to someone calling them out, under their own rules, as they state that it must be unanimous, or the treaty fails. So surely they are open to challenge, via the Courts, as is our present shower of a government, for when the Lisbon Lie was put before Parliament, it was on the understanding that unananimity was required. Therefore the Treaty is now no longer the same legal entity, that Parliament voted on.

Also the case can be argued that we cannot and do not live under a system, that is allowed to change the rules/laws, as it sees fit, without going through the correct motions, or else all common and contract law becomes null and void.

You can't have a stable or fair system of governance, where the rules/laws change, to suit only one side, if and when they feel like it. We can thank the ghastly Clarke for this concept, for during an earlier ERM crisis, they should have torn it up, but instead of following the rules, he said why not ignore them, which they did and the ERM lived for another day.....but legally it should have died, and no-one challenged that. Ever since then the EU has been getting away with just ignoreing it's own rules, whenever it needed to.

Maybe Mr Wheeler and his freinds might like to look at this angle, if their current attempt fails.

BREAKING NEWS BBC World at 1 - high court has ordered Britain to delay ratification

"The court expects judgment to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgment."

Not ordered. Just asked to do so voluntarily.

Not quite. the wording in a direction published on Friday Lord Justice Richards was:


and it is that word voluntarily that the government will now ignore and ratify irrespective now of both the peoples wishes and the courts.

"In a direction published on Friday Lord Justice Richards said: "The court is very surprised that the government apparently proposes to ratify while the claimant's challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court.

"The court expects judgement to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgement."

He warned that if they do not, Mr Wheeler will be invited to seek an injunction to stop ratification going ahead. "


Some grounds for optimism afterall.

I've got two closely related questions here, & would appreciate answers - if anyone knows them:

1A). Has the UK government caused the Queen to be in contempt of court by signing the European Union (Amendment) Bill about the Lisbon Treaty while the judgement is still being awaited on the Stuart Wheeler referendum case? Surely the treaty is highly relevant to the Wheeler case, which is still sub judice! In addition, when the High Court Judge makes his ruling (presumably in the near future) , whoever is the loser (ie the government or Mr Stuart Wheeler) may want to appeal to the House of Lords - or paradoxically after the Lords, even the ECJ.

1B). If the Gorgon Brown has caused the Queen to be in contempt of court, how serious is this? Would Brown be considered to be seriously at fault for causing this - as the major "accessory before the fact". Or would the simple withdrawal of the Queen's signature be enough to restore legal normality (except for a now-unsigned treaty, & a rather embarassed Queen & PM!)?

Can anyone clarify this situation for me, please? Thanks in advance

Agincourt

The EU would be wise to remember the following point from Patrick Henry :

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people,
it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest the
government comes to dominate their lives and supress their interests."


The 1st rule of politics is : LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE


Regards
sinkorswim

Am I wrong but that very much reads as legal niceties for a serious telling off (verbal kicking)

I agree with all of that. It is clearly what needs to be done. It would be the right way to proceed in any properly accountable system.

However, the mere threat of such proceedings should have kept any potential rogue operators in check but recent events clearly demonstrate it hasn't. A line has been crossed. [Is it that white one in the road over there? Ed. No. JA]

I'd say this is proof that we were in new territory, as of course we have been for some time. I don't think we can rely any longer on the courts. I get the strong impression that their deliberations are now based on operating principles derived more from some kind of mediaeval sophistry, perverse literalism or just outright casuistry and big windbag bollox for the sole purpose of serving the political agenda rather than anything suitable for a disinterested pursuit of justice.

This is Alice in Nightmare Wonderland. It's like being in one of those old horror films where all that appears natural and wholesome is gradually revealed—to a naive and innocent victim who, naturally, dismisses all the clues—to have been eaten away from the inside by a deeply malevolent presence, until finally events build to a crescendo and he is confronted with the full-brown horror of his situation.

Cue the 7th Cavalry.

Failing that, a brooned-off, bloodthirsty, British mob. (Actually that would be my first choice now.)


Oh I'm sure they'll get over it and resume business as usual shortly.