European Union - Isolation
On Friday, the European Union came together to appoint the Head of the Commission - Jean Claude Juncker.
This appointment was contested by David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK. He states: "It risks undermining the position of national governments, it risks undermining the power of national parliaments and it hands new power to the European Parliament."
This is important, not a little bit, but very very much.
From what I can gather re David Cameron the issue appears to be that the Heads of State choose the European Commissioner, not the European Parliament - correct me if I am wrong. The rule of law in the UK has been undermined by the concept of ADR/Mediation via the Woolf Reforms/Gill Reforms in Scotland and our legal system is completely sunk - you cannot trust Justice in a British court (see my three court actions) as judges are deliberately getting their decisions wrong. This is similar to the Woolf Reforms which were done via the Despatch Box, not the Woolsack as referred to in Hansard by Lord Mackay of Clashfern in 1998. This may be because of the Human Rights Act 1998 with mediation coming into force via the Access to Justice Act 1999 and effectively privatises the judiciary by removing the case from the court process. Compromise seems to be the order of the day and is the SPIN in NEW Labour policy, the difference between Access TO Justice and Access FROM Justice.
But is this spin the reason why David Cameron is arguing that there is a "RISK" of undermining of national governments and national parliaments. The very very important issue is yes they can do this but what REASON would they have for doing this?
I took part in the Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation at European level. There were 27 published responses one of which came from Texas. So 26 EU responses was the extent of the democratic debate on this issue. Arlene McCarthy MEP headed up the Consultation and was NEW LABOUR via the UK. So not only did NEW LABOUR implement the Woolf Reforms in the English & Welsh Legal System and the Gill Reforms in the Scottish legal system, they also did so via Europe (Arlene McCarthy MEP).
Of the 27 published responses in Europe all bar my response followed the format of the Woolf Reforms and the American litigator David Shapiro's version of it that I had knowledge of via S J Berwin & Co in London (1998) - David did say in an inhouse lecture that he and five others in America brought the concept to America in or about 1970s around about US President Nixons administration. (In fact David Shapiro's profile makes interesting reading and I reckon a fascinating and enlightening conversation could be had on topic if he was ever interviewed politically and I was the interviewer!).
The Woolf Report established that there was to be a new landscape and regime in law for the 21st Century. By the time of the Consultation paper via Arlene McCarthy MEP that new landscape was effectively in place as evidenced by 26 of the 27 responses. I don't like the word "regime" so I sought to differentiate my model by calling it "the Competition model" and I had presumed as Europe was about "Competition", I had a chance over a "coercive regime" model - no chance. I was not even interviewed concerning my response which surely in a democratic debate you should interview for and against topic. So it went before the European Parliament and New Labour won the day. But what did they win - they effectively had the ability to UNDERMINE the application of the rule of law in every European Union state with perhaps Denmark being the exception as they abstained from the Consultation (and I don't know Denmark's position on ADR/Mediation). So David Cameron now has an idea of where reform is necessary!
So with some ALARM and TREPIDATION I hear our Prime Minister state that Juncker's appointment carries the risk of undermining national governments, national parliaments and hands power to Europe. Why the need to "undermine" ... Regulations, Directives, Decisions and Recommendations are a simple and effective system of implementation of power.
New Labour is no longer in power in the UK, but the damage has been done via the UK to Europe (sourcing from America not Japan albeit the concept is Japanese) so what is new. Angela Merkhel informed that she was in favour of "modern", but it is modernity that has the flaw - the Woolf Reforms have been outed, yet still in the UK we entrench ADR/Mediation in our institutions, contracts and services which completely undermines the common law and reason for the judiciary. The Directive appears due for implementation in the UK anytime soon, probably July as it takes two years to harmonise a directive with national STATUTORY laws in any event. And there does not appear to be a STOP/PAUSE button even with "whistleblowers" gaining the upper hand via the public sector such as the NHS, BBC, Local Authorities, and Whitehall etc.
So what exactly has caused David Cameron as Prime Minister to "stand alone" and successfully point out to all EU countries that there is a RISK of UNDERMINING and why is it important - there's no such thing as a bad press.
Whilst he is isolated in Europe, it appears to me that he is RIGHT and therefore to stand alone is the right thing to do, running with the crowd when your wrong is not pleasant and we can now see where the power play is - Germany.
The issue occurs to me to be related to COMPROMISE but he does not say anything on this so maybe this is where he sees the need for most reform - to deal with New Labour SPIN in relation to the application of the rule of law and either to outlaw it altogether or to contain it within very specific parameters and especially out of the public domain where the problem has surfaced in society with specific evidence of unpleasantness concerning whistleblowers. There needs to be greater awareness of the reasons why you litigate (public domain); arbitrate (private domain) and mediate (private domain). Litigation is the ultimate goal because the rule of law is applied publically and all court documents are public domain. This is completely different to arbitration which is private application of the rule of law. Mediation in both these systems undermines the rule of law as it always removes the case to the private domain outside the rule of law where anything goes and compromise occurs. I would advocate that mediation is outlawed in the PUBLIC judicial system as a reform at EU level. On human rights, litigation should always favour freedom of expression over privacy which should favour arbitration - people should realise why they need to choose between the three systems.
The rule of law is meant to be applied. This keeps us safe and just. It is progressive because case precedent brings the law up-to-date and is the best method to do progressive societal change. New Labour or Third Way Progressives have got the role of the courts in society out of balance with the use of statutory powers to regulate society. If judges do not reason (and reason correctly)(and there should be little need for the Human Rights Act at all or as I would argue the need to prosecute a judge for perversion of the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office) then society disintegrates and reverts to savage. Only by upholding the rule of law do you effectively change society - sometimes this is by reiterating what the law is and sometimes this is done by a challenge to what the rule of law ought to be. Whilst I have my own ideas on law for the 21st century they imbue the traditional role of the judge in society and no amount of modernity can change the "best" system already in place when it works properly.
So David Cameron I support your standing alone on this one because I realise you are intelligent enough and can see the issues at your level - I have stood alone on the Woolf Reforms all the way to Europe since 1997. Labour just don't get it. Why else have rights in society, if you are only going to compromise them. Compromise them too much and you undermine them. Then you will find you have none.
Whilst I have absolutely no faith in the current judicial system in England & Wales, which is why I did not appeal my last case: which I appreciate is inequality on my part rather than being unequal on appeal, the nonsense concerning Professor Richard Susskind OBE has to stop because it is masonic and an ignorant power which is orchestrated, concerted in its practice which is defeated easily by freedom of expression and fair comment. I did ask the English and Scottish Human Rights Commission to take a look at the 5 boxes of case papers to establish methodology of criminality/human rights abuse, they declined to take them. If there is an academic or Phd student out there who would be interested in doing research on my three cases, especially in relation to "litigants in person" in the judicial system please email me for access to court papers, etc.
This appointment was contested by David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK. He states: "It risks undermining the position of national governments, it risks undermining the power of national parliaments and it hands new power to the European Parliament."
This is important, not a little bit, but very very much.
From what I can gather re David Cameron the issue appears to be that the Heads of State choose the European Commissioner, not the European Parliament - correct me if I am wrong. The rule of law in the UK has been undermined by the concept of ADR/Mediation via the Woolf Reforms/Gill Reforms in Scotland and our legal system is completely sunk - you cannot trust Justice in a British court (see my three court actions) as judges are deliberately getting their decisions wrong. This is similar to the Woolf Reforms which were done via the Despatch Box, not the Woolsack as referred to in Hansard by Lord Mackay of Clashfern in 1998. This may be because of the Human Rights Act 1998 with mediation coming into force via the Access to Justice Act 1999 and effectively privatises the judiciary by removing the case from the court process. Compromise seems to be the order of the day and is the SPIN in NEW Labour policy, the difference between Access TO Justice and Access FROM Justice.
But is this spin the reason why David Cameron is arguing that there is a "RISK" of undermining of national governments and national parliaments. The very very important issue is yes they can do this but what REASON would they have for doing this?
I took part in the Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation at European level. There were 27 published responses one of which came from Texas. So 26 EU responses was the extent of the democratic debate on this issue. Arlene McCarthy MEP headed up the Consultation and was NEW LABOUR via the UK. So not only did NEW LABOUR implement the Woolf Reforms in the English & Welsh Legal System and the Gill Reforms in the Scottish legal system, they also did so via Europe (Arlene McCarthy MEP).
Of the 27 published responses in Europe all bar my response followed the format of the Woolf Reforms and the American litigator David Shapiro's version of it that I had knowledge of via S J Berwin & Co in London (1998) - David did say in an inhouse lecture that he and five others in America brought the concept to America in or about 1970s around about US President Nixons administration. (In fact David Shapiro's profile makes interesting reading and I reckon a fascinating and enlightening conversation could be had on topic if he was ever interviewed politically and I was the interviewer!).
The Woolf Report established that there was to be a new landscape and regime in law for the 21st Century. By the time of the Consultation paper via Arlene McCarthy MEP that new landscape was effectively in place as evidenced by 26 of the 27 responses. I don't like the word "regime" so I sought to differentiate my model by calling it "the Competition model" and I had presumed as Europe was about "Competition", I had a chance over a "coercive regime" model - no chance. I was not even interviewed concerning my response which surely in a democratic debate you should interview for and against topic. So it went before the European Parliament and New Labour won the day. But what did they win - they effectively had the ability to UNDERMINE the application of the rule of law in every European Union state with perhaps Denmark being the exception as they abstained from the Consultation (and I don't know Denmark's position on ADR/Mediation). So David Cameron now has an idea of where reform is necessary!
So with some ALARM and TREPIDATION I hear our Prime Minister state that Juncker's appointment carries the risk of undermining national governments, national parliaments and hands power to Europe. Why the need to "undermine" ... Regulations, Directives, Decisions and Recommendations are a simple and effective system of implementation of power.
New Labour is no longer in power in the UK, but the damage has been done via the UK to Europe (sourcing from America not Japan albeit the concept is Japanese) so what is new. Angela Merkhel informed that she was in favour of "modern", but it is modernity that has the flaw - the Woolf Reforms have been outed, yet still in the UK we entrench ADR/Mediation in our institutions, contracts and services which completely undermines the common law and reason for the judiciary. The Directive appears due for implementation in the UK anytime soon, probably July as it takes two years to harmonise a directive with national STATUTORY laws in any event. And there does not appear to be a STOP/PAUSE button even with "whistleblowers" gaining the upper hand via the public sector such as the NHS, BBC, Local Authorities, and Whitehall etc.
So what exactly has caused David Cameron as Prime Minister to "stand alone" and successfully point out to all EU countries that there is a RISK of UNDERMINING and why is it important - there's no such thing as a bad press.
Whilst he is isolated in Europe, it appears to me that he is RIGHT and therefore to stand alone is the right thing to do, running with the crowd when your wrong is not pleasant and we can now see where the power play is - Germany.
The issue occurs to me to be related to COMPROMISE but he does not say anything on this so maybe this is where he sees the need for most reform - to deal with New Labour SPIN in relation to the application of the rule of law and either to outlaw it altogether or to contain it within very specific parameters and especially out of the public domain where the problem has surfaced in society with specific evidence of unpleasantness concerning whistleblowers. There needs to be greater awareness of the reasons why you litigate (public domain); arbitrate (private domain) and mediate (private domain). Litigation is the ultimate goal because the rule of law is applied publically and all court documents are public domain. This is completely different to arbitration which is private application of the rule of law. Mediation in both these systems undermines the rule of law as it always removes the case to the private domain outside the rule of law where anything goes and compromise occurs. I would advocate that mediation is outlawed in the PUBLIC judicial system as a reform at EU level. On human rights, litigation should always favour freedom of expression over privacy which should favour arbitration - people should realise why they need to choose between the three systems.
The rule of law is meant to be applied. This keeps us safe and just. It is progressive because case precedent brings the law up-to-date and is the best method to do progressive societal change. New Labour or Third Way Progressives have got the role of the courts in society out of balance with the use of statutory powers to regulate society. If judges do not reason (and reason correctly)(and there should be little need for the Human Rights Act at all or as I would argue the need to prosecute a judge for perversion of the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office) then society disintegrates and reverts to savage. Only by upholding the rule of law do you effectively change society - sometimes this is by reiterating what the law is and sometimes this is done by a challenge to what the rule of law ought to be. Whilst I have my own ideas on law for the 21st century they imbue the traditional role of the judge in society and no amount of modernity can change the "best" system already in place when it works properly.
So David Cameron I support your standing alone on this one because I realise you are intelligent enough and can see the issues at your level - I have stood alone on the Woolf Reforms all the way to Europe since 1997. Labour just don't get it. Why else have rights in society, if you are only going to compromise them. Compromise them too much and you undermine them. Then you will find you have none.
Whilst I have absolutely no faith in the current judicial system in England & Wales, which is why I did not appeal my last case: which I appreciate is inequality on my part rather than being unequal on appeal, the nonsense concerning Professor Richard Susskind OBE has to stop because it is masonic and an ignorant power which is orchestrated, concerted in its practice which is defeated easily by freedom of expression and fair comment. I did ask the English and Scottish Human Rights Commission to take a look at the 5 boxes of case papers to establish methodology of criminality/human rights abuse, they declined to take them. If there is an academic or Phd student out there who would be interested in doing research on my three cases, especially in relation to "litigants in person" in the judicial system please email me for access to court papers, etc.
posted by Lesley McDade at 7:04 pm
0 comments
