The Daily Telegraph reports today, that ‘ministers’ have “admitted that plans to give the European Court of Justice new powers over policing, immigration and criminal justice "raise sensitive issues relating to national sovereignty".”
This apparently is the meat of a memo written by ‘ministers’ which was sent to the House of Lords EU select committee.
Frankly the DT might just as well have had as its headline “Ministers rearrange deck-chairs on Titanic’s decks” when the real story concerning the European Court of Justice is contained in the new Article 9 of the Constitution Mark II. This Article places the Court alongside all the other major institutions of the EU as fundamental cogs in the main wheel of the Empire: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It is, however, in the body of Article 9 (1) that we find the meat as opposed to the bone and the gristle.
The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
In looking at this the reader must bear in mind that this document will be the Constitution of the new
This article makes it clear, therefore, that the EU’s Institutions SHALL “….advance its objectives..” and SHALL “….serve its interests…” and SHALL ensure “…..the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions”.
I emphasise the word ‘shall’ here because it makes it clear beyond a peradventure that the ECJ, as part of the institutional framework of the EU, is obliged above all things to advance the EU’s objectives, whatever those may be from time to time. The ECJ must, above all things, serve the interests of the EU, whatever the EU from time to time determines those to be. Finally the ECJ must ensure above all things that the EU’s policies and actions are effective and are not derailed.
Why is this important?
That I am afraid is horribly simple. And it is the implications of all this that should send a shudder through the souls of all of our citizens who value the continuing independence of the
The clear implication of this is that, in any legal action before the ECJ, no judgement can be given which does not advance the EU’s objectives, serve the interests of the EU or ensure the effectiveness of the actions and policies of the EU. Thus, if the United Kingdom takes some action against the EU before the ECJ which has right on its side but which runs counter to the objectives of the EU or does not serve the EU’s interests, then, notwithstanding that the UK is in the right, the ECJ is bound by law to find against it and in favour of the EU.
As I say, ministers who are worried about “new powers over policing, immigration and criminal justice "raise sensitive issues relating to national sovereignty” are simply wandering about of the forest missing the wood for the trees.
If there be any doubt that this is the effect of Article 9 (1) the Constitution Mark II Treaty has a second whammy up its sleeve in Article 9 (2):
Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures and conditions set out in them. The institutions shall practise mutual sincere cooperation.
Thus the ECJ may do no more and no less than the Treaty and its Statute permits it to do, which as we have seen from Article 9 (1) is strictly circumscribed. In addition the ECJ must “practice mutual cooperation”: thus it is mandatorily obliged to go along with whatever the EU wants, come what may.
This is not all the Constitution Mark II Treaty has to say on the topic of the ECJ. Article 9 (d) of the new document:
"Article 9d The European Commission and its President
1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the
Again the treaty contains that mandatory phrase SHALL, a potent weapon in the hands of those who would brook no opposition to their plans.
Here we have the Commission given and obliged to exercise oversight of the application of the law under the control of the ECJ. And in exercising its oversight, it will be only too happy to ensure the “application of the Treaties” which will, you need not doubt, be whatever it says today the Treaty, as elastic a document ever devised for a nation State or an International organisation, is and means. We all know how it will exercise that oversight and it will not be in favour of those who would challenge the objectives and interests of the EU.
So, instead of the robust independence of Government that has characterized the courts of England and Wales since the time of Charles I, we are now faced with a ‘court’ of law which is subservient entirely to the wider interests of the EU and which must, by virtue of the EU Constitution, slavishly and without question advance the EU’s objectives and serve its interests.
Court of law? No, this constitution ensures that anything we would recognize as a court of law, fearlessly and fiercely independent of the Executive, will not exist in the New Empire. Instead all we shall have is a gimcrack Star Chamber in which right, justice and law are but secondary considerations to the objectives and interests of the