Here it is to be observed, of what authoritie antient lectures or readings upon statutes were, for that they had five excellent qualities. First, they declared what the common law was before the making of the statute, as here it appeareth. Secondly, they opened the true sense and meaning of the statute. Thirdly, their cases were brief, having at the most one poynt at the common law, and another upon the statute. Fourthly, plaine and perspicuous, for then the honour of the reader was to excell others in authorities, arguments, and reasons for proofe of his opinion, and for confutation of the objections against it. Fifthly, they read, to suppresse subtill inventions to creepe out of the statute. But now readings having lost the said former qualities, have lost also their former authorities: for now the cases are long, obscure, and intricate, full of new conceits, liker rather to riddles than lectures, which when they are opened they vanish away like smoke, and the readers are like to lapwings, who seeme to bee nearest their nests, when they are farthest from them, and all their studie is to find nice evasions out of the statute.
– Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Law of England, I, 280b) ever more applicable in an age of legislative acceleration.
There are currenly more than 20 government bills in progress, several of which have profound implications for the common law and some of which MPs will have had less than two weeks notice of before they are called to vote on timetable motions to hustle them through regardless of consideration.
As a result of these increasingly numerous timetable motions, elected representatives cannot scrutinise important legislation. That means that we cannot express our views on the amendments before us; it means that the interested parties who look to us to articulate their concerns will not have their concerns reflected in discussion; and it means that our constituents will not be able, through their elected Members, to express their views on legislation. All that is profoundly wrong.
With these timetable motions, we are stripping out part of the democratic process. If that were not bad enough, we are also stripping out part of the legislative process.
– Douglas Hogg MP (Hansard 27 Nov 2000 : Column 680)
One need not sidestep a legislature in order to rule by decree. It suffices to exhaust it. Perhaps he has his own reasons for doing what he does in his own political context – and crudity is a selling point for the mob – but it makes Mr Chavez’s behaviour look unsophisticated and extemporised.
Is the “common law” still in existance? It seems to have taken a right beating over the last few years. We are no doubt headed for the “Code Napoleon” as good EU members, or are we there already. See article in the ex-Torygraph re: “Man arrested for kidnapping vandal”, the police state is closer than even I thought.
Another example of the encroaching Police State:-
Plan to snatch cars from driveways
Derek,
The common law does exist. Though Whithall clearly wishes to destroy it, there are a lot of hedgerows to grub up.
We are no doubt headed for the “Code Napoleon” as good EU members, or are we there already.
Dead wrong. It is when I see that sort of thing unthinkingly repeated that I despair of the euroskeptic cause. (Rather as I do of the ID campaign when people congratualte me for opposing the Bilderberg group’s New World Order plan to implant microchips in them.) The ‘Code Napoléon’ definitely doesn’t exist any more. The EU is not imposing French Law but a differently rooted body of jurisprudence that’s a cousin. The various Civil Law traditions in Europe are varied, and they are all being supplanted.
Meanwhile Britain has an unrelated holocaust of law arising from populist parliamentary absolutism and nothing to do with the EU. EU directives [and laws, decisions, framework decisions, recommendations, opinions, positions, joint actions and regulations] are used extensively both as pretext and for policy laundering by the UK government of things that would be constitutionally forbidden or are opposed by governments in other parts of Europe.
Please. Please. Let someone get in who will repeal **all** the UK legislation since 1980 – and only then look at it to see if it is actually worth re-introducing again.
No chance & fat chance of that looking at the current prospects available to do it.
So that’s why they wont let us have guns…
1977 was a pretty bad year, actually.
All we really need is for our MPs to grow a pair of testicles.
When they come round canvassing, ask them which bills they opposed, and oif they didn’t oppose your pet hate ask them why not.
Or better still, beat the shit out of them.
I’m rather interested in the concept of MPs voting by secret ballot.
It certainly has its pros, though maybe the odd con too.
Best regards
Bad idea, Nigel. All it takes to buy it is for vote buyers to condition the payoffs on the final outcome of the vote. Then the sale is even easier because we don’t even know who the sellers were.