The trouble with bloggers who get into the fine detail is that few wish to read the fine detail and that gets into the whole nature of blogs per se. The more serious blogger possibly does not have the medium to communicate through, except as a pointer, Luikkerland, for example, is one who sees it more as a series of reports and articles than a blog.
Ian Parker-Joseph has sent this below, which came from a correspondent of his and I did read through it. It was both galling yet neither more or less than what we’ve come to expect. During the Olympics seems as good a time as any to run it.
My own comment is that if you take your eyes off the bstds for even a day, they’re not at the Olympics cheering on but silently working behind the scenes to further their control over the nations. We’re sick of them, bored with them but they continue on, irrespective.
The abstract is short – please give it some of your attention.
Subject: EU Law prevails over National Law, INCLUDING NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Date: Sat, 4 Aug
As you may know, I am fighting against the “The Data Retention (EC Directive) known by the UK Government under Regulations 2007 EXPLANATORY NOTE(This note is not part of the Regulations)
However, by whatever title these Regulations implementing Directive 2006/24/EC (“the Directive”) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.
Apparently, I am not on my own in fighting against this EU Legislation. As I am in the process of responding to the Government’s Consultation Paper on this matter, in updating parts of my research I have come across these four papers I have placed in attachment. It seems I am not on my own any more.
Please Note at the bottom of the first page of the letter Dated 10th November 2010 it states quite clearly “In this context, it must be recalled that Union Law prevails over National Law, INCLUDING NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
I have never seen that so clearly written before. Our Governments knowing this and poo-pooing the thought, is without doubt TREASON. As this is more YOUR future I am sending these to you. Best wishes, Anne Palmer.
The German Working Group on Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) had requested the European Commission to disclose an opinion of the Commission’s Legal Service (Ares(2010)828204) analysing the “possibility to to render the application of the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC) optional to Member States (MS) and the consequences of such a different treatment between MS as well as the question of the legal basis on which future instruments on data retention should be adopted”.
This opinion was prepared for the Directorate-General Home Affairs (DG HOME) in the context of it’s internal discussion of the revision of the Directive. The Commission decided to decline access to this opinion tackling an “area of high sensitive nature”, taking into consideration that the “legal issues discusses in it are still and would be in the future subject of discussion by the College in the context of the adoption of a proposal for the revised Data Retention Directive”. 21 February 2012: