Constitutional illegality of EU treaties affecting the Sovereignty of Britains Peoples

Posted: November 30, 2013 by tallbloke in government, Legal, People power, Politics

cromwell-dissolving-parliamentThis is a repost of a page I found which looks into the issue of the rights of Britain’s people and the way our constitution is constructed so as to prevent us being sold down the river by the politicians of the day. Before we start, a couple of quotes:

“This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union…”
(Maastricht Treaty 1992)

“Now we’ve signed it – we had better go and read it”
(Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)

Parliamentary Limits

Ironically, it seems that the power parliament has most interest in exercising nowadays is the manufacture of criminals, by making more and more conduct illegal, regardless of the effect on our essential rights guaranteed under common law. If government, any government, “believes it can do as it wishes without the constraint of a constitution which is enforceable then no-one and nothing is safe.” These are the views of a lawyer who has made a special study of the EU’s corpus juris proposals.

A government above the law is a menace to be defeated

Lord Scarman

Parliament cannot do as it wishes. There are a great many things parliament cannot do. It cannot sit for more than five years, it cannot permit anyone not elected to speak in its chamber, nor anyone who has not sworn an oath of allegiance, it cannot dissolve itself and it cannot legitimately depose The Queen.

No parliament can bind its successors. This principle is itself a maxim of common law, and has been often restated:

“Acts derogatory to the power of subsequent parliaments bind not”

Blackstone and Halsbury

Neither can parliament legislate in contravention of the treaties which established the constitution and sovereignty of this nation – a point central to our case. Furthermore, parliament has a duty of care to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of the people who elected it.

Nor can parliament complete the passage of a bill without the royal assent.

The sovereign, on the other hand, can dissolve parliament – with or without the advice of ministers – and can withhold the royal assent. Only the sovereign can call for new elections, and only the sovereign can sign treaties. Those powers are the embodiment of the sovereign’s supremacy over parliament. They may, from time to time, be delegated.

Because the sovereign is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the Bill of Rights, such royal prerogative has restrictions:

* It cannot be used in an innovatory way. (If this were not so, the executive could dispense with parliament and the judiciary

and become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.)

*It may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols, 1576, stated “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”.)

*It may not be used to suspend or offend against statutes in force. (This comes from the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words: Archbishop: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of this Kingdom of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same.” Prospective Monarch: “I solemnly promise so to do.”)

The limitations of royal prerogative are clear. Sir Robert Howard again:

“No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the king ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law.”

Thus, we argue, while sovereigns have, over the centuries, at times devolved the royal prerogative to sign treaties to plenipotentiaries to act on their behalf, such devolved power is strictly limited, and cannot be used to remove the freedoms and liberties of the people by imposing foreign government and foreign law on them.

In other words, the signatories to the European Communities Act 1972 exceeded their powers under the royal prerogative.

We further argue that the subsequent claims made by government ministers and officials that European law is “supreme” in the UK is wholly ill-founded. At least one lawyer has suggested that anyone making such a claim is either ignorant, or lying, or bluffing, or admitting illegalities, or perpetrating a combination of all four follies.

Blackstone pointed out that English law was superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the constitution:

“A right of every Englishman is that of applying to the Courts of Justice for redress of injuries. Since the law in England is the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty and property, Courts of Justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”

The Cambridge Law Journal, 1955, referring to (now Professor Sir, QC) William Wade’s The Basis of Legal Sovereignty, said that:

“sovereign legislation depends for its authority on (what Salmond calls) an ‘ultimate legal principle’, ie: a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be given. If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey (the UK) parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. It is above and beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute.”

In other words, the relationship between parliament, sovereign legislation and the courts of law in the United Kingdom is unalterable.

It is surprising to us that the so-called “supremacy” of the European Court of Justice has not been tested in the courts on this point already. If Wade is right, the UK courts are supreme in this jurisdiction.

An attempt was made to bring these and other matters to court in 1971 by Raymond Blackburn who challenged the government’s right to join the common market on the grounds that it could only do so by surrendering sovereignty. A year later, Ross McWhirter invoked the Bill of Rights to show that the government did not have authority to give away the right and liberties of the people. Tragically, he was assassinated before the matter was decided. His brother Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Summonses were issued against the then Foreign Secretary for treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the case and then drop it as “not in the public interest”. Yet the Bill of Rights prohibits “suspending laws or the operation of laws”. His action was also contrary to natural justice because the Attorney General was sitting in judgement in his own cause.

To accept that the only remedy lies with the body that perpetuates the abuse is to admit that there is no remedy. That must be wrong, both morally and constitutionally.

In January 1977, John Gouriet, a signatory to this document, asked the Attorney General to declare illegal the proposed boycott of all communications with South Africa by the Union of Post Office Workers on the grounds that it would be a criminal breach of the Post Office Act. The Attorney General refused to uphold the law, claiming that he was the sole arbiter, and Mr Gouriet issued proceedings against both the law officer and the union.

Summing up in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning quoted the great 18th century Attorney, Sir Thomas Fuller:

“Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

Lord Denning added:

“When the Attorney General comes…and tells us that he has a prerogative by which he alone can say whether the criminal law can be enforced in these courts or not – then I say he has no such prerogative. He has no prerogative to suspend or dispense with the laws of England. If he does not give his consent, then any citizen of the land – any one of the public who is adversely affected – can come to this court and ask that the law be enforced.”

This judgement was overturned in the House of Lords on the grounds that Mr Gouriet did not have the necessary locus standi. Within a year, Lord Denning had helped introduce new rules which now permit an application to the courts even if the applicant can demonstrate no more than ‘sufficient interest’.

Lord Hailsham later described Mr Gouriet’s case as the most important constitutional case since 1689.

Applying the principle of Pepper v. Hart (1992), (the interpretation of statutes by reference to the debates in parliament during passage of the bill), the following statements during the passage of European enabling legislation are relevant:

“The house as a whole may therefore be reassured that there is no question of this bill (The European Communities Bill 1972) making a thousand years of British law subservient to the Code Napoleon”.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Hansard, 15 Feb 1972. Pg.270.

“Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house, but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people”.

Mr Alfred Morris MP. Hansard, 17 Feb 1972 Pg. 727-8.

Government statements made during the time of national debate on the question of the UK joining what became the EU can be described at the very least as deliberately misleading, and at worst as barefaced mendacity by ministers who had received expert legal advice to the contrary and knew the full facts:

“There is no reason to think that the impact of community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law in the United Kingdom”.

The Lord High Chancellor, Command Paper 3301, 1967, on the constitutional implications of the UK joining the European Community.

“…no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”

White Paper on joining the Common Market, issued by the Heath government in July 1971.

Three years later, writing in support of the “Yes” campaign in the 1975 referendum, Roy Jenkins was equally misleading:

“The position of the Queen is not affected. English Common Law is not affected.”

On the other hand, if the government’s statements of 1967 and 1971, and Roy Jenkins remarks of 1975, were correct, these statements now support our case for declaring that all EU legislation is unconstitutional in the UK and therefore null and void.

The inescapable fact is that successive governments have acted as if such statements and commitments did not exist. They have simply been ignored.

Which brings us to the trustworthiness and honesty of the elected representatives of the people, to whom they have a duty of care. Furthermore, a government which has introduced in less than three years a score of bills and Acts of Parliament which deal with various aspects of the constitution needs to be reminded that they have no right to exceed the powers vested in them. We, the people, own the rights to our own property – in this case Britain.

Every five years we might be said to ‘lease’ its care to ‘tenants’ (parliament) who have an obligation to look after our property and act in our best interests as the ultimate owners. Those same ‘tenants’ do not own the title to our deeds, nor any right of ownership over the property itself. They merely own the right of abode, and duty of care, for a maximum of five years. They are caretakers, if you like. They have no right to sign away those title deeds. They did not own them in the first place.

“In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and of enforcing laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and whenever these powers are united together, there can be no public liberty…. But where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands, the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence and therewith of the liberty of the subject. With us therefore, in England, this supreme power is divided into two branches; the legislative, to wit, the Parliament, consisting of the King, the Lords and the Commons; and the other, the executive consisting of the King alone”.

Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Benjamin Franklin

The modern disproportionate dominance of the elected House of Commons over the sovereignty of the people, and the erosion of constitutional checks and balances, were first given serious encouragement by Lord Mansfield, a Scottish Jacobite who became Lord Chief Justice of England in the 18th century. Despite Blackstone’s observations, he had no problem with an executive operating within the legislature.

The institutions and practices which have grown up since that time – collective cabinet responsibility, organised political parties, career politicians, and the whip system which denies politicians the freedom to vote according to their conscience – are not based on legislation, nor on common law, nor on the law and custom of parliament. Sir Ivor Jennings pointed out in Law and the Constitution that these conventions had never been formally recognised by parliament or the courts. The courts recognised a constitution based primarily on the Bill of Rights.

To explain away this perversion and destruction of our legal constitution, politicians like to suggest that we have an unwritten one, consisting of ‘conventions’ which they themselves have devised to regulate and give an appearance of legality to activities which, according to Walter Paley’s book Political and Moral Philosophy are unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Returning to the present time, and the central issue we have raised about the condition, status and validity of Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, we come to the case of R v. Witham, 1997. This addressed the “doctrine of implied repeal”, and Mr. Justice Laws demolished it:

“Access to the courts is a constitutional right: it can only be denied by the Government if it persuades parliament to pass legislation which specifically – in effect by express permission -permits the executive to turn people away from the court door.”

He explained the basis of his conclusion thus:

“What is the precise nature of any constitutional right such as might be…<beyond> the power of

government…to abrogate? In the unwritten order of the British state, at a time when the common law continues to accord a legislative supremacy to parliament, the notion of a constitutional right can…not be abrogated by the state save by specific provision in Act of Parliament, or by regulations <which>…specifically confers the power to abrogate. General words will not suffice. And any such rights will be the creatures of the common law, since their existence would not be the consequence of the democratic process but would be logically prior to it.

“The common law does not generally speak in the language of constitutional rights, for the good reason that, in the absence of a sovereign text, a written constitution which is logically and legally prior to the power of the legislature, executive and judiciary alike, there is on the face of it no hierarchy of rights such that any one of them is more entrenched by law than any other.”

Which brings us back finally to the meaning of words, respect for their meaning, and acceptance of the force, obligations and commitments they carry. The Alice in Wonderland language – “words mean what I want them to mean” – adopted increasingly by the executive in modern times is at the very heart of the UK’s current political scepticism, as governments blithely ignore almost anything that is inconvenient to them, prefer political correctness to substance, and spin-doctor their way around every obstacle.

If the words used in the Witham judgement have any meaning, legal or otherwise, the logic of the case we have argued in this document is overwhelming. Whether those in or close to the executive, the legislature or the judiciary will recognise the force of our case sufficiently to find the courage to lend support is altogether something else.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    “Acts derogatory to the power of subsequent parliaments bind not”

    Could be one for the legal experts if someone sues as a result of this, yesterday:

    ‘Britain took a step towards holding a public vote on whether it should remain in the European Union when members of parliament backed an effort to enshrine the referendum promise in law.’

    http://thestockmarketwatch.com/news/read.aspx/lawmakers-push-britain-closer-to-european-union-referendum/a34202113bfb1909acc6d0778b8d27ef/

  2. Richard111 says:

    So why are we in this bloody mess we are in today????

  3. A C Osborn says:

    None of them do this “Furthermore, parliament has a duty of care to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of the people who elected it.”
    They illegally give it away to Europe at every turn.
    There is also this, “nor anyone who has not sworn an oath of allegiance”, the only allegiance they swear to is to their party, their bank balance and themselves.
    certainly not to the Queen or the people.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    I forgot to add in the first item, they also give it away to US Spooks and courts when asked to.

  5. colliemum says:

    Now we’ve signed it – we had better go and read it”
    (Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)

    Another one of this modern tribe of politicians who sign laws which they haven’t read! I suspect that none of our current crop in Parliament have read what they vote on, and especially nothing coming from Brussels which they are nodding through.

    So where are our lawyers who would take on this government, on the basis of that article posted above? Ah – they are probably afraid to lose their entry into the cosy Westminster club …

  6. Anoneumouse says:

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves”.

    Winston Churchill.

  7. tallbloke says:

    CM: So where are our lawyers who would take on this government, on the basis of that article posted above?

    A couple have tried, on narrower grounds. The history is interesting. I’ll follow up with some links soon.

  8. colliemum says:

    Thanks, Rog!

  9. J Martin says:

    MPs and government ministers should be prohibited from earning or accepting money from any source whilst an MP or minister. If they want to accept offers of money, board positions, consultancies etc etc then they must resign from being a minister or MP.

    That way we would quickly be rid of the people who are really only it for themselves and not fully committed to helping drive the UK forward and improving the lot of the people.

    I would also like to see an end to the practise of MPs voting their own salaries, that is a practise for which no checks and balances exist, I would propose that we adopt a Swiss model in this regard and put such matters to a referendum.

    And judging by the post above, it would seem that the Attorney General is able to exceed his authority and that is a situation which needs to be addressed, either by parliament or the supreme court.

  10. J Martin says:

    I would also like to see an end to our first past the post system of elected dictatorship, for that is not democracy.

    Nay sayers will point to Italy as a justification for keeping our outdated system, however, in reply I would point out that New Zealand has a few years ago adopted a more modern form of democracy and this Anglo Saxon version shows every sign of success. Frankly even the Italian version would be preferable to the current UK version, it is at least democracy which is something we most decidedly do not have in the UK.

    It is increasingly clear that what passes for democracy within the UK merely serves to benefit vested interests and justify the status quo thus producing a sloth like response to a changing world, whereas proportional representation would provide for a more nimble legislature better able to adapt to to the modern pace of change.

    I would suggest that an example of the inadequacy of the current UK political system to respond to the sovereign concerns of the people is reflected in the recent meteoric rise of UKIP on the political scene. If UKIP can provide a full field of candidates for the next general election, then for Labour, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives all bets will be off.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Article in the Telegraph points out:

    ‘the EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty) requires the EU to negotiate a trade deal with any departing member (Article 50)’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10485773/EU-Britain-is-moving-closer-to-the-exit.html

    Also ’80 per cent of UK economic activity is entirely within the UK. Of the other 20 per cent, 12 per cent is with the rest of the world and only 8 percent is with the EU.’

    Even that 8 percent is unlikely to disappear, just the Ts & Cs would be slightly different.

  12. A C Osborn says:

    Roger, how do the general public get this information, I am sure if enough people knew they would be prepared to try and “Class” action lawsuit. Maybe even pay for some prime time advertising on the TV etc.
    Do you know if UKIP are aware of this?

  13. tallbloke says:

    I’m sure UKIP are aware of it. But Attorney General hasn’t got the cojones to defy Govt so realpolitik attitude is to invoke Article 50 and go that route to BrExit from the EU.

  14. suricat says:

    One thing to remember here TB is that all English people are not ‘citizens’ (individuals that display a distinct ‘self determination’ within the ‘Laws’ laid down by the ‘Legislature’), but are ‘subjects’ (the ‘protectorate’ beneath the ‘Ruling Monarch’) to the ‘Ruling Monarch’ (the ‘singular arch’ between ‘God’ and ‘everything else’).🙂

    This is more ‘complex’ than the ‘peer review’ system! The ‘publishing house’ can ‘overrule’ the ‘peer review’, ‘following’ its publication (‘papers’ are disproved by ‘peer review’ and not by a ‘publisher’s statement’ following review), and not just ‘refuse to publish’.😉

    IMHO the main weakness with this system is the ‘strength’ and ‘clear sight’ of the Ruling Monarch. However, we seem to be moving towards a more ‘Citizenship’ type/system of democracy lately. This ‘isn’t’ good with a ‘first past the post’ electoral format!

    ‘First past the post’ (FPTP) is good/inexpensive when there are ‘two parties’ (‘Whigs and Tories’) involved. However, modern politics involves more than just ‘two’ parties and can elect a party with less ‘overall votes’ than ‘other party candidates’!

    For an example from 100 voters per ‘regional’ constituency let’s look at some possible ‘outcomes’:

    Constituency 1;
    Party ‘A’ = 1%
    Party ‘B’ = 50%
    Party ‘C’ = 49%.

    Constituency 2;
    Party ‘A’ = 50%
    Party ‘B’ = 1%.
    Party ‘C’ = 49%

    Constituency 3;
    Party ‘A’ = 1%
    Party ‘B’ = 50%
    Party ‘C’ = 49%

    ‘Regional Government’ is decided by the ‘regional’ FPTP system of democracy. Thus:
    “Constituency 1” is governed by party “B”.

    “Constituency 2” is governed by party “A”.

    “Constituency 3” is governed by party “B”.

    This makes party “B” the “Nation’s ruling party” by default! It’s a ‘statistical majority’ ‘at “that” level of statistical analysis’ with a FPTP system (party “B” has won the most ‘regional’ “elections”)!

    In reality the ‘National’ ‘pole’ suggests that:

    Party ‘A’ = 1+50+1 = 52% /3 of the ‘Nation’s vote’.
    Party ‘B’ = 50+1+50 = 101% /3 of the ‘Nation’s vote’.
    Party ‘C’ = 49+49+49 = 147% /3 of the ‘Nation’s vote’.

    Which indicates that for a “National election”, ‘party C’ has the support of the greater number of the “National” voting electorate (147% / 300% [almost half the ‘vote’]), yet doesn’t even hold a ‘seat’ to represent its electorate in ‘The Parliament’! No matter, the ‘Ruling Monarch’ can just ‘dissolve’ Parliament anyhow!

    It’s a mess (no small wonder that Napoleon referred to England as “a nation of shop-keepers”)!!!

    Should ‘The UK’ be under ‘Regional rule’, or ‘National rule’? ‘National rule’ would ‘do away’ with the ‘UK’ and form ‘one state’. ‘Regional rule’ permits many ‘States’ to exist within the ‘UK’.

    It seems to be a ‘choice’ between ‘a rock and a hard place’.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ray,
    First we’ll deal with Napoleon.

    Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, 1776, wrote:

    “To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. ”

    Napoleon I, who was familiar with Smith’s work, is reported as later using a French version to dismiss England’s preparedness for war against France:

    “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers.”

    Josiah Tucker, the Dean of Gloucester, preceded them both in 1766, although not with the precise text of the currently used version of the phrase:

    “And what is true of a shopkeeper is true of a shopkeeping nation.”

    Secondly we’ll deal with Sovereignty.

    Sovereignty resides in the people, not the monarch, and not the parliament. This has been the case since 1688. We chopped the Kings head off, and dissolved his parliament. Then we put a monarchy back in place ON OUR TERMS.

    So lets have less ill informed and downward cast defeatism, and a bit more people power.

  16. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: December 2, 2013 at 10:15 am

    That wasn’t my main point TB. Of course the Ruling Monarch serves ‘The People’, but the number of Parliamentary ‘Parties’ now in existence has confounded ‘The People’s’ representation in The House of Commons.

    How can we get “a bit more people power” without ‘fairer’ representation of The People?

    IMHO. Our own democracy needs repair before any, further, consideration should be given to the EU.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Ray, I disagree with you on the priorities question here. While we are in the EU it matters not a tinkers fart what the parliamentary arrangements are with whips, parties, FPTP etc, because the EU makes law on all areas of policy. We need out of the EU first, and sort out reform of the domestic arrangements as and when. The people are in a better position to demand a referendum on the EU than they have been for a long time, because the ruling party is shit frit of UKIP usurping their natural constituency in the south. Labour have the same fear in the north. And UKIP really will take us out of the EU as majority of the people wish.

  18. @colliemum says: November 30, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Now we’ve signed it – we had better go and read it”
    (Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)

    Another one of this modern tribe of politicians who sign laws which they haven’t read!
    ============================================================================

    Which explains the repeated pother from Cameron about “renegotiating the power of the EU over the UK”. He can’t. The only way under the Lisbon Treaty is to invoke Article 50, which means that we leave the EU, and then re-enter, at that point making any renegotiations we want to.

    Which suggests that either Cameron is a moron because he doesn’t know this, or he’s a moron because he thinks we don’t know this.

    Off with all their heads. I’m sick and tired of it. Tallbloke – I am sure that what you set out here is correct, and that our membership of the EU is a legal travesty. However, nothing will be done about it, in the same way that if the EU makes laws which it then needs to break (e.g. bailing out bust countries), it just breaks them.

    The rule of law has lapsed. Not for you and I who could be banged up for having a TV and not paying the poll tax for it; but for our lords and masters, to whom they no longer apply.

    What to do about it?

    Go long on piano wire.

  19. J Martin says:

    Why can’t the Ukraine be a bridge between the EU and Russia and be a member of both unions.

  20. tallbloke says:

    Jeremy P: welcome. I think we can do this at the ballot box. We have good honest folk in UKIP local branches and we can put them forward as PPC’s and councillors. All the public has to do is vote them into office.

    Then we can take a good look at the unelected on the establishment payroll.

  21. Billy Liar says:

    Any more of this and Mr Plod will be wanting to look at your laptop again! 🙂

  22. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: December 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    “Ray, I disagree with you on the priorities question here. While we are in the EU it matters not a tinkers fart what the parliamentary arrangements are with whips, parties, FPTP etc, because the EU makes law on all areas of policy.”

    That’s because The House of Commons is in disarray. Why? Because the current Monarch maintains a ‘hands off’ policy. My thinking was on either ‘two parties’, or ‘PR’ (proportional representation) for more parties than two. ‘Whips’ can only influence the party members that they are aligned to. “FPTP” is a ‘two party’ electoral system that generates a ‘clear’ result for the two participants. The EU only seems to exploit ‘weaknesses’ in national constitutions. Is that the way they gained ingress to our constitution???

    The “tinkers fart” theory only exists during the ‘governing period’ of a party that ‘acceded’ to the EU! Parties that have acceded in the past have resolved to ‘accede’ during ‘future’ occupations as a governing party, by default, to reduce the parliamentary time involved with ‘succeeding’ to the EU (this act alone seems ‘unconstitutional’). With ‘every national election’, a ‘carte blanch’ (in the ‘clean sheet’ sense) is inscribed within a ‘party manifesto’ for a ‘future government’.

    “We need out of the EU first, and sort out reform of the domestic arrangements as and when.”

    Absolutely not! This is a ‘road map’ to disaster!

    Domestic concerns need to be addressed first. The configuration of domestic ‘energies/services/production appropriations’ have been so ‘tied’ to Europe in recent history, that it’s difficult to ‘disambiguate’ the status quo to a level where we can say ‘what is the UK’ and ‘what is Europe’!

    IMHO (at this time)This is demagoguery, the UK needs to ‘re-assert’ its identity before any disconnection from the EU. To do otherwise would invite the disintegration of the UK under ‘Home rule’ cries from Scotland!

    The ‘timing’ isn’t ‘opportunistic’ with the ‘free Scotland’ vote.😦

    “The people are in a better position to demand a referendum on the EU than they have been for a long time, because the ruling party is shit frit of UKIP usurping their natural constituency in the south. Labour have the same fear in the north. And UKIP really will take us out of the EU as majority of the people wish.”

    This is demagoguery. Where is the ‘consensus’ of the people to which you refer? You can’t show it because a ‘FPTP’ (first past the post) voting system doesn’t reveal this detail in the Commons, or the ‘electoral role’. It’s an ‘extrapolation’!!!

    Best regards, Ray.

  23. tallbloke says:

    No Ray, it’s all the opinion polls. The people want out of the EU. That’s why the main parties keep promising a referendum, and then failing to deliver.

  24. oldbrew says:

    The main parties can see all those well-paid MEP jobs going down the pan with a no vote.

    Plus suddenly they would have to take full responsibility for running the country again, instead of hiding behind the Brussels facade on various nationally important issues.

  25. A C Osborn says:

    suricat says: December 3, 2013 at 8:10 am
    ““We need out of the EU first, and sort out reform of the domestic arrangements as and when.”

    Absolutely not! This is a ‘road map’ to disaster!

    Domestic concerns need to be addressed first. The configuration of domestic ‘energies/services/production appropriations’ have been so ‘tied’ to Europe in recent history, that it’s difficult to ‘disambiguate’ the status quo to a level where we can say ‘what is the UK’ and ‘what is Europe’!

    IMHO (at this time)This is demagoguery, the UK needs to ‘re-assert’ its identity before any disconnection from the EU. To do otherwise would invite the disintegration of the UK under ‘Home rule’ cries from Scotland!”

    Unfortunately due to the UK government working to the letter of EU Rules, instead of UK Law we cannot address Domestic concerns first, like switching back on Coal Fired power stations because it breaks EU rules.

  26. suricat says:

    A C Osborn says: December 3, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    “Unfortunately due to the UK government working to the letter of EU Rules, instead of UK Law we cannot address Domestic concerns first, like switching back on Coal Fired power stations because it breaks EU rules.”

    Unfortunately, that one is a ‘double whammy’. It’s not only EU regulation, it’s also a UN ‘compliance’ for a proposed ‘climate control’ regimen ‘acceded’ to by a Labour ‘.gov.uk’ years ago.

    IMHO. What Britain ‘needs’ is a ‘political party’ that is ‘uncompromised’ by any ‘prior’ agreement. Thus, is unhindered by its history of ‘prior agreement’ as ‘the governing party’.

    My first choice to get the UK out of this ‘vice’ would be the ‘Lib Dems’, but their current ‘coalition’ with the ‘ruling party’ may well ‘dissolve’ this choice by way of accession to acceptance to prior agreement by association.

    My second choice would be ‘UKIP’ (United Kingdom Independence Party) because of their primary objective of an EU exit. However, I fear a ‘forced’ exit from the EU may well lead to unforeseen unpalatable circumstances.

    Another alternative would be to form a ‘new’, moderate, party that has no history and can ‘move forward’, unhindered, by any previous agreements.

    Best regards, Ray.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Ray: There is no time to form a new moderate party, and in any case UKIP are centre ground, as shown by the fact they are taking as many voters from left as right. Even if there was time to form a new party, all it would do is split the non-main party vote and return the liblabcon to power.

    Stop fannying about and vote UKIP. You don’t have to swear fealty to them for evermore. But we do need out of EU pronto, and UKIP is the only party which will deliver. You don’t need to worry about trade tarriffs, they wouldn’t dare. The balance of trade is such that they need us far more than we need them.

  28. A C Osborn says:

    Ray, Lib Dems are the ones really pushing the Green Dream, they would be an even worse choice than the other 2 or the coalition.

  29. tallbloke says:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-judge-surprised-that-controversial-eu-laws-that-we-blocked-are-now-legally-binding-8934773.html

    One of the country’s most senior judges has reignited the debate about the expanding power of European courts by admitting his “surprise” that a controversial EU charter which ministers opted out of is now legally binding in Britain.

    Mr Justice Mostyn said it was “absolutely clear” from a protocol signed as part of the Lisbon Treaty that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be enforceable in this country.

    But he told the High Court that a ruling in Luxembourg had now reversed this position in a move which he said would permanently extend the reach of human rights legislation in Britain.

    The judge added that the “constitutional significance of this decision can hardly be overstated”.

    MPs reacted angrily and warned that British control over the justice system was being undermined by “dangerous and undemocratic” European interference in the rights of Parliament.

    Mr Justice Mostyn’s comments came in a judgment on the case of an asylum seeker, AB, whose barrister cited the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in a failed bid to win his case.

    The judge said: “I was surprised, to say the least, as I was sure the British government had secured an opt-out at the negotiations of the Lisbon Treaty.”

    After quoting the relevant protocol, he added: “To my mind, it is absolutely clear that the contracting parties agreed that the Charter did not create one single further justiciable right in our domestic courts.”

    The judge said, however, that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has since given a judgment which means that the Charter, which contains a “host of new rights” is now valid in British courts.

    The judge added: “The constitutional significance of this can hardly be overstated. The Human Rights Act incorporated into our domestic law large parts, but by no means all, of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some parts were deliberately missed out by Parliament.

    “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contains, I believe, all of those missing parts and a great deal more. Moreover, that the much wider Charter of Rights would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed.”

    Tory MP Dominic Raab said the judge’s comments should serve as a “warning” and added: “The imposition of new EU human rights against the will of Parliament is dangerous and undemocratic. If we’re not careful, we will lose control of our justice system.”

    Enfield North MP Nick de Bois, a Conservative member of the Commons Justice Select Committee, said: “The fact that even a High Court judge can be shocked at the level of intrusion into British justice should be a red flag to ministers.”

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights is part of the EU’s 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which sets out rights to environmental protection and medical treatment, as well as civil, social and other rights.

    Former prime minister Tony Blair told Parliament at the time that Britain had secured an opt-out in response to concerns about the impact on British justice.

  30. A C Osborn says:

    There is no “opting out” of the BORG, you will be consumed.
    This country is being sold down the river for no price at all.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Vote UKIP at every opportunity. We the people can bring Britain back from the brink. Join your local branch, get involved with politics, or grumble impotently.

  32. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: December 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    “http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-judge-surprised-that-controversial-eu-laws-that-we-blocked-are-now-legally-binding-8934773.html”

    I was unaware of this TB. Thanks for the ‘heads up’. I’m all for the most ‘expedient’ method for the UK’s extraction from the EU now!!!

    What on Earth have our MEPs been doing???

    Best regards, Ray.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Ray: That’s more like it🙂
    Our UKIP MEP’s having been leaping up and down for 12 years telling us this stuff. But no-one paid any attention until now.

  34. clive says:

    So now the penny has dropped.Your MEP have sold you to the EU for pennies.You have no other choice left,but to vote UKIP and arm yourselves.

  35. I’ve not noticed this thread up to now.

    Having been a practising solicitor for over 40 years I can confirm that I have been aware for some years of the potential illegality of all the steps that drew us into the EU and the laws subsequently imposed upon us by the EU.

    Both our Parliament and our Sovereign appear to be in breach of the fundamental principles of the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

    “No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the king ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law.”

    Which is why English Common Law has been dismantled in recent years.

    It is also interesting that Treason is no longer a capital offence.

    http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/timeline.html

    “1999. On the 27th of January the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to 1998”.

    Someone must have been getting nervous🙂

    Our nation has been taken away from us step by step since we agreed to join a ‘Common Market’ with European nations which slowly segued without further authority from the electorate into a political union and in the meantime our strong relationships with our Commonwealth were allowed to fade away.

  36. I notice that Blair was elected in 1997.

    Capital punishment for Treason was abandoned in January1999 so steps towards it must have commenced at the time of, or very soon after, the 1997 election.

    Maybe New Labour knew that it was about to take steps that could potentially be regarded as treasonous ?