eurealist.co.uk

The Headline in the Telegraph “Pledge to decriminalise environment offences” caught my eye, I thought, if our Tone is going to start decriminalising offences, would not that cause some problems with the EU, which has competence on environmental matters.

One naturally assumes that to decriminalise is to make something that is a criminal offence, not a criminal offence, and therefore a legal pursuit, as opposed to say hunting which is a legal pursuit but in February will become a criminal offence.

But on reading the article it becomes clear that Tone is not going to make environmental offences legal at all, no what he has in mind is far more seditious than that. Under the proposals, which are likely to be controversial, (to put it mildly) the Environment Agency would be able to apply civil penalties or fines for routine pollution offences according to a tariff based on the turnover of a company or a fixed sum for an individual.

The agency would have total discretion as to the level of fine that was levied and the offender would not have to go to court. (Not have to go to court, or would not be allowed to?)

Experts say the right of appeal to a court would be needed under such a system, but, controversially, ministers do not appear to be proposing one at this stage.

It would seem the proposal is, that the odious necessity of the environmental agency to have to actually prove in court that an offence has been committed, with all the delays and cost that system of justice at present incurs, before the court could find the offender guilty of the crime and then issue the just punishment for the offence, is to be removed, the offence will have no longer have to be proved and will have deemed to be committed on the word of the environment officer, who would also have the total discretion as to the level of punishment. It would also seem that government ministers do not see the need for any rights of appeal against the decision of the Environment officer.

The civil penalties could be used to enforce some of the new burdens that companies face, such as meeting recycling quotas. They could also apply in cases regarded as routine, such as when chemical firms exceed pollution limits by small amounts.

At present, environmental offences fall under the criminal law, which can mean long delays and high costs for local groups taking waste tip operators, for instance, to court.

Yes at present we have a quaint old system, sort of based on an old concept of freedom and justice that someone is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. It is really unfortunate that this system is a little inconvenient to a totalitarian state because it does allow someone accused of a crime to actually have the fact that they have committed a crime proven, before they are punished for it.

It is something called Common Law as opposed to Civil Law or Code Napoleon; the difference is that under common Law every man is innocent until he has been proved to be guilty. Civil Law holds that every man is guilty until he has proved himself innocent. But in this instance government ministers do not see the need to bother themselves with allowing the accused to have any rights at all.

Of course the fact that we have been told that being a member of the EU would in no way conflict with English Law and that English Common Law was safe from encroachment by the EU code Napoleon is obviously just another lie to add the already mounting pile of untruths, membership of this Union has wrought from the mouths of our magnificent leaders.

The fact that the proposal itself is a denial of our basic constitution is apparently not an important consideration to the government, we should remind them once again that we have something called the Bill of Rights 1689, which although now over 300 years old has so far, that is until recently, protected the British people from an overbearing government, the fact that this act is still remains on the statute books and has never been repealed, and is therefore still in force and will remain so in the absence of any specific subsequent Act, directly and specifically repealing it, and because the Bill is constitutional Act there is no principle of implied repeal.
The authority of the Bill of Rights was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement in November 2001. Desuetude (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law.

On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’ The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void. It specifically forbids handing power to foreigners. On this basis, given that no one will have been convicted for any offence, any demand for payment of a penalty is, as set out by the Bill, would be “illegal and void”.

Hazel Blears MP Labour Member of Parliament for Salford, Home Office Minister, defends the Civil Contingencies, Act in the Telegraph.

But we should all understand that these are Bolshevik-style powers, so sweeping and totalitarian that they sound as if they have been lifted out of some 1930’s banana-republic manifesto, no democratic parliament in a free country should even consider the possibility of putting such power in the hands of Ministers.

The thing about this bill to remember is that it is an enabling act, it does not set out the laws or regulations which might at a later time be introduced under the act. The government have also ensured that nothing can stand in the way of any law they may make under the act. The act enables the government or even part of the government to ignore or remove any other act of parliament and even parts of our Constitution, Ministers are empowered to make virtually whatever regulations they want; In fact, the Government can “disapply or modify” (i.e. repeal, amend or suspend) virtually any ‘enactment’ (Act of Parliament) - even constitutional legislation such as the Human Rights act Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

Yet Hazel Blears has the cheek to say;

“that Parliament has not granted the Government dramatic new powers, nor are these powers solely about terrorism and similar powers have been available to governments since the Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1920.

The principal difference between this Act and its predecessor is that we have substantially strengthened the safeguards against misuse. A “triple lock” has to be satisfied before the powers can be taken - the emergency must be serious, the decision to take new powers necessary and any powers taken proportionate. In addition, the maker of emergency regulations must have regard to the continuing operation of Parliament and the courts and cannot make substantive amendment to constitutional enactments. ”

Unfortunately the much vaunted “Triple Lock” does not form part of the bill it only appears in the Consultation document, The House of Commons Defence Committee said “The consultation document claims that before using the emergency powers, Ministers “must be satisfied” that the triple lock criteria are met. But no such requirement appears in the bill and the consultation document does not ask for views on this point. We believe that it should. Powers of this type should only be used when absolutely necessary. There is clearly scope for these powers to be misused. It seems to us that the bill which provides the powers should also provide the necessary safeguards on their use.

So the substantially strengthened safeguards against misuse does not exist.

The House of Commons Defence Committee also said:

“We have discussed the wide-ranging scope of the powers to make regulations given to
Ministers by the bill. We have expressed a number of concerns in principle over their
scope, but additional to the question of whether they are too far-reaching in themselves is
the question of whether they are subject to the proper parliamentary procedures. The wider
the scope of such powers, the greater the need to ensure that their exercise is subject to
adequate parliamentary oversight”

“The first question therefore must be whether the Government needs such powers at all”

“We believe that the Government must provide much more detailed information on
the content of the regulations which Ministers propose to make under the draft bill”

“We conclude that the provision to treat specialist legislative measures as primary
legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act should not be included in the
bill unless the Government can demonstrate a clear and compelling need for the
additional powers which it provides”.

“The draft bill is as notable for what it omits as for what it contains. The regional and
national arrangements are almost completely excluded. The vital safeguards which are
intended to prevent misuse of the very extensive emergency powers are not in the bill.
They seem to have no status beyond good intention”.

Anne Palmer says about the Act|:

The Government intend and would like, through Clause 21(3)(j) of the above Bill, to disapply or modify any Act of Parliament. They believe that they could (and most certainly would on their definition of the word “emergency”) remove all past legislation, which makes up the statutory patchwork of the British Constitution, which is made up of the following,

• Magna Carta 1297
• Bill of Rights 1688
• Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
• Act of Settlement 1700
• Union with Scotland Act 1707
• Union with Ireland Act 1800
• Parliament Acts 1911-49
• Life Peerages Act 1958
• Emergency Powers Act 1964
• European Communities Act 1972
• House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
• Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975
• British Nationality Act 1981
• Supreme Court Act 1981
• Representation of the People Act 1983
• Government of Wales Act 1998
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Northern Ireland Act 1998
• Scotland Act 1998
• House of Lords Act 1999

Our Common Law Constitution, is a contract between the Crown and the Sovereign people of this country. Some of the others are ‘Settlement Acts’, and others are ‘Treaties’ which also cannot be repealed or altered, even though a couple of these have been altered to suit the Government of the day I believe this action to be ultra vires. Another Government that recognises our Common Laws for what they truly are should have the task of correcting this action?

The remedy is a protective Clause inserted IN the proposed Civil Contingencies Bill, which will protect all our Common Laws, our Constitution forever.

Parliament cannot amend, alter or repeal; all that Parliament can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta. That is why Magna Carta is so very important and why the people would have (and are duty bound) to protect it. The most Parliament can do is activate Clause 42 of the Magna Carta which states that all men shall be free to come and go except -for a short period-in time of war”. It is limited to movement of people, but I think that is clear enough, until a decision is made as to the interpretation of a “short period”. Therefore the removal of our Constitution would be unlawful/illegitimate. Our Oath of Allegiance so recorded in the Common Laws must be honoured.

Also, what is not included in the list above is HM Queen’s Coronation Oath. Parliament cannot remove that, because it was sworn at the Coronation, and the Queen is bound by it. However, it is a most important document, because she swears to Govern by our laws. Those LAWS are listed above.

The Government thinks they can do as they like, they cannot, for they have to obey our Constitution-every bit of it, in the same way the people have to. The Government are bound by our Constitution in the same way that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is and as Her people are.

All Governments are bound by the following, “Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors”, (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation 1,KB 733)” which applies to all legislation, statutes etc, put forward by them, (various Governments from 1932) they cannot alter our Constitution for they are all bound by it. The present Government seem to have great difficulty distinguishing one from the other.

Lord Lucas: “The Government are not averse to gathering enormous powers unto themselves. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill would, in the event of a crisis, have given the Government the power to abolish or tear up legislation and, by ministerial fiat, create any legislation. Perhaps we will see something different when the Bill emerges, but under the draft Bill they would have the power to destroy the constitution — to abolish judges and Parliament and create a dictatorship…

Lord Lucas, speaking at the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 5 July, made this point:
“Are we opening up our system to the equivalent of what happened in Germany in 1933, where it became possible for an extreme party legitimately to hijack a democracy and turn it into something totalitarian.