Is Praemunire returning through the back door?

For ceunturies, it was illegal to appeal to any foreign court. The three acts of Praemunire, passed in the 14th Century, made it a criminal offence. These acts remained on the statute books until the 1960s, rarely (if ever) used in the last few hundred years, but still symbolising the concept that a self-governing nation should have its own legal system. The Praemunire acts were repealed with little fanfare in the run-up to the UK’s accession to the EEC. Our courts ceased to be the final authority in 1973.

It must be pointed out from the start that the European Convention of Human Rights, which the Conservative Justice Minister Chris Grayling has talked recently of giving our judges and the power to overrule or ignore, was not created by the EU but by the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe. This organisation, founded in 1950 by a number of European countries including the UK, shares the same flag as the EU – the so-called “ring of death” – and also exists to promote European integration. However, it is a separate organisation which, unlike the EU, cannot pass binding laws and does not require its member states to transfer any sovereignty. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted as far back as 1960, although it was not incorporated into UK law until 1998, through the Human Rights Act, even though the UK was one of its founding members. One reason for the long delay was the reservations felt particularly by some Conservative MPs that it would result in a replacement of the older common-sense UK concept of human rights with a more politically correct variant. Their reservations have proved well-founded. It has been the ECHR appeals system which delayed the deportation of the extremist Moslem cleric Abu Qatada by 10 years and the ECHR which is insisting that the UK ends its blanket ban on prisoners being allowed to vote.

So talk of pulling out of the ECHR appears at first glance to be a good move towards reasserting the sovereignty of our courts and indeed, of our Parliament. Perhaps Praemunire is sneaking in by the back door. Well, possibly, but there are some serious questions which need to be answered.

Firstly, would the EU allow us to ignore the rulings of the Strasbourg judges? The Open Europe think tank thinks it is a possibility and Grayling has insisted his proposals are consistent with EU membership. However, the outgoing Justice Commissioner Vivianne Reding made it clear that while we are part of the EU, the UK must be a signatory of the ECHR and implement its decisions. In other words, withdrawal from the ECHR would require not just withdrawal from the Council of Europe but withdrawal from the EU. If this sounds confusing, things get even more complicated. The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU the legal basis to acceded to the Convention in its own right. This could see the European Court of Human Rights court ruling on EU laws which apply in Britain and greater use of the convention by the EU Court of Justice. The new European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said he would like to see the EU accede to the convention under his term. Would the UK seek to veto such a proposal as part of its plans to shake off the yoke of the ECHR?

Secondly, if the desire of Chris Grayling and other senior Tories is to return power back to the UK judiciary and Parliament, they will need to tackle the European Court of Justice and repeal the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. This is as equally stuffed with political correctness as the ECHR. It was an ECJ ruling which, for instance, banned insurance companies from using gender as a factor when setting motor insurance premiums. It also fined the National Museum of Labour History in Manchester £7,223 for failing to display a representation of the EU flag on a billboard. If the Tories are serious about cracking down of foreign interference in our nation’s legal system, they cannot ignore the ECJ. So far, there has been no mention of standing up to this EU institution. Is it possible that the Tories are just engaging in window-dressing to attract back disillusioned voters? After all, many ordinary people are unaware that the ECHR is not an EU institution. Is this a ploy to confuse people into thinking that power is being reclaimed frim the EU when it is nothing of the sort? Given the enthusiasm of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to opt back into 35 Justice and Home Affairs measures contained in the Lisbon Treaty which were among the 135 which the UK initially opted out of, some degree of scepticism is justified.

Finally, there is a plan to replace the ECHR, which was incorporated into UK law in 1998 through the Human Rights Act, with a specifically UK Bill of Rights. This would be fine if it is based on, for example, the 1689 Bill of Rights and rooted in our historic Common Law. If so, it would give the lie to the critics who claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would put us on a par with dictatorships like Belarus, Common Law has historically given us far greater freedoms than anything available on the Continent, be it a dictatorship or even a democracy like France or Germany. However, concerns have been expressed that this new bill of rights, supposedly based on “British Values” will turn out to be a medium for enforcing political correctness. Andrea Williams of Christian Concern has pointed out that on some occasions the Strasbourg Court has overturned some pretty daft decisions by the UK courts. She therefore has reservations about Grayling’s proposals. “This is a very worrying development,” she wrote recently. “Our national courts have seriously let down the Christian community and do not have a track record of recognising and respecting Christian faith. The European Court of Human Rights has shown a better understanding of Christian belief and a greater commitment to protecting Christian freedoms than we have seen in the UK courts in recent years.”

So while the restoration of national sovereignty is to be welcomed, if the Tories are serious, they must combine it with a root and branch clear-out of political correctness and a restoration of true “British values” that do not penalise people for holding positions which were mainstream in our country for hundreds of years.

Get Carta

‘Torquil Dick-Erikson, the journalist who first alerted us to the iniquitous Corpus Juris criminal code has had a letter printed in the Daily Telegraph. We reproduce it below:

GET CARTA

Sir,

Magna Carta is to be celebrated by David Cameron’s administration, even if Allan Massie (Comment, June 16) says that it was not a “revolutionary” step in its time. 

Yet it was the first, successful attempt to limit the state’s power. Clause 29, to this day, deprives the state of power to order punishment of a citizen, which can be decided only by a jury of the defendant’s peers. It inspired the American revolution. Nobody has mentioned that Magna Carta never crossed into continental Europe. 

Continental criminal procedures are little known in Britain, even by the Government.

In 1215, Pope Innocent 111 was setting up the Inquisition, which, far from limiting the authorities’ power over the individual, made it absolute. When he heard of Magna Carta, he wrote to the English clergy saying they had done something “abominable and illicit“.  In Europe, only England escaped the Inquisition. Centuries later, Napoleon’s new laws adopted and adapted an inquisitorial method, redirecting it to the service of the state. Napoleon’s codes underpin most continental legal systems today. Brussels aims to create a unified European criminal code. The embryo “Corpus Juris” proposal was unveiled in 1997, and was denounced in “THE DAILY TELEGRAPH”  It would abolish trial by jury, HABEAS CORPUS, and other safeguards considered normal by the British, yet ignored by the European Convention.

The European arrest warrant is a stepping stone towards Corpus Juris: a European prosecutor will issue European warrants. Yet Mr Cameron intends to reconfirm the European Arrest Warrant.  This will trash the foundation stone of our freedoms in Magna Carta.

So just what is Mr. Cameron meaning to celebrate?

TORQUIL DICK-ERIKSON
Rome

How EU law is made

Originally published August 28th, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

When politicians explain that laws are made in Westminster they are only giving you a half truth, so please ask them to explain what I am about to show you below, and then ask them whether they understand the UK relationship with the EU, and how the UK is governed.

Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the first pillar of EU law has been satisfied, subsumed into the Treaty on the EU (TEU) and into the renamed Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Such treaties provide primary law within all 27 member states.

As the Lisbon Treaty as subsumed allows for self amendment, there will be no more treaties of this kind, only International Agreements that will now be negotiated and sealed by the EU, and former National treaties that will be adopted and form part of the TEU and TFEU, an example of which can be found here.

All other law, in the parlance of the EU, is called Secondary Legislation, and it is derived in the following ways, and I outline the three most important elements of secondary legislation, Regulations, Directives and Decisions. (and I take this from the EUR-LEX database direct).

1.3.1. Introduction
The ‘secondary legislation’ is the third major source of Community law after the treaties (primary legislation) and international agreements. It can be defined as the totality of the legislative instruments adopted by the European institutions pursuant to the provisions of the treaties. Secondary legislation comprises the binding legal instruments (regulations, directives and decisions) and non-binding instruments (resolutions, opinions) provided for in the EC Treaty, together with a whole series of other instruments such as the institutions’ internal regulations and Community action programmes.
1.3.2. Regulation
Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a regulation is a general measure that is binding in all its parts. Unlike directives, which are addressed to the Member States, and decisions, which are for specified recipients, regulations are addressed to everyone.
A regulation is directly applicable, which means that it creates law which takes immediate effect in all the Member States in the same way as a national instrument, without any further action on the part of the national authorities.
1.3.3. Directive
Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a directive is addressed to the Member States. Its main purpose is to align national legislation.
A directive is binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved but leaves them the choice of the form and method they adopt to realise the Community objectives within the framework of their internal legal order.
If a directive has not been transposed into national legislation in a Member State, if it has been transposed incompletely or if there is a delay in transposing it, citizens can directly invoke the directive in question before the national courts.
1.3.4. Decision
Adopted either by the Council, by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission, a decision is the instrument by which the Community institutions give a ruling on a particular matter. By means of a decision, the institutions can require a Member State or a citizen of the Union to take or refrain from taking a particular action, or confer rights or impose obligations on a Member State or a citizen.
A decision is:
– an individual measure, and the persons to whom it is addressed must be specified individually, which distinguishes a decision from a regulation,
– binding in its entirety.
It is important to note that the European Commission, an unelected body, has the power to make law using the methods above without recourse to either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. The UK Parliament, our MP’s, now only create on their own initiative something in the region of 15% of the laws that pass through Westminster. All other laws and Statutory Instruments are in furtherance of laws that have been made in Brussels using the 3 methods above.
If you go to the EUR-LEX database directly, you can see the other types of instruments that are used to formulate, or coerse National Governments to introduce legislation ‘voluntarily’ with the veiled threat that a directive will follow unless they do. These areRecommendations, Opinions and Joint Actions.
The Smoking Ban is one such example, where the EU Commission has only ever given an Opinion that National governments were encouraged to follow, with explicit threats of EU legislation if they did not.

Historical laws and regulations are all on the various EU databases. All you have to do is find them, trouble is they keep moving them.

You don’t think they are trying to hide anything! Do you?

Civitas calls for the return of supremacy to the Supreme Court

Civitas, which is leading think tank supported by The Campaign for an Independent Britain has released a report which says that Britain has a “moral duty” to give the Supreme Court power over the European Court of Justice.

Dr David Green, the head of the Civitas said in a report released today that “The Government must unpick unwanted EU laws one by one and challenge Brussels to “do its worst”. To do this the Government will have to amend the 1972 European Communities Act to give Supreme Court superiority over the EU Court of Justice. A move which would amount to a “unilateral declaration of independence” without tearing up all EU laws and regulations in one go, Mr Green said.

The Civitas report examined the damage the EU has “wreaked upon Britain’s traditions of liberty and democracy since we joined the common market in 1973“. “There is a moral imperative for the UK to reclaim its independence irrespective of whether the EU is economically beneficial or not, Dr Green said.”

“It is tragic to watch the free people of Britain, who historically led the way in establishing modern freedom and democracy, absent-mindedly give up their powers of self-government. What’s at stake is far more than our future prosperity. It’s our ability to uphold our distinctive contribution to Western civilisation. The huge cost of the EU is undoubtedly a very important question, but even if the cost were zero – for that matter, even if we made a profit – the case for upholding our independence would stand.”

Last year Mr Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary said: “We have to make our Supreme Court supreme, I do not believe decisions about the way this country is governed – we are a democracy after all – should be taken elsewhere.” He is likely to welcome the report as renewed support for his ongoing battles with the European court over prisoner voting and whole-life tariffs.

Britain’s leading judges have also lent their support for the campaign for protecting the sovereignty of the Supreme Court in recent months. Lord Sumption, who is a UK Supreme Court justice, has accused the court of exceeding its legitimate powers, usurping the role of politicians and “undermining the democratic process“.

This is a welcome development now that Britain’s membership of the undemocratic economically moribund EU is being openly discussed but doesn’t go as far as we in CIB want which is the complete repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The Debates in British Parliament

Most politicians, if not all, know exactly what the European Union is to turn into, for it is written clearly enough in Hansard. It is only the ordinary people of the Country that these politicians of yesterday and today didn’t see fit to enlighten. Yet these ordinary people trusted them, they voted for them to look after them and this their Country.

As I take words from Hansard, and to mean anything at all, they have to be the words taken from before we actually joined the European Community or Common Market as we were told. My one difficulty is, there are so many words to choose from on this subject it is difficult to choose which ones to set down for you to read. I have put the dates and column numbers for your own confirmation.

Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, 31st July 1961 (column 928)

This is political as well as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world.”

Mr Fell, same day (Column 935)

Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when 650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for many generations past?”

On 2nd August 1961 (column 1478), a Mr Silverman is restating that on the 28th June he moved a Motion about the European Common Market in the following terms, “That this House, being gravely concerned at the pressure to make this country enter a European Common Market and the consequent threat to subject its independence, its membership of the Commonwealth and its right and power to plan its economy in its own way, to a political union with Germany, France, Italy and Benelux, as well as a threat to the survival of the Commonwealth inherent in

these proposals, urges Her Majesty’s Government not to enter into any negotiations concerning such entry until expressly empowered so to do by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and by this House.”

Later on that same day (column 1480) at 3.42 pm, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan:

I beg to move, That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom. Etc, etc”

Later on (column1491), he states,

This problem of sovereignty, to which we must, of course, attach the highest importance is, in the end, perhaps a matter of degree.  I fully accept that there are some forces in Europe which would like a genuine federalist system. There are many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have seen this at Strasbourg and other gatherings. They would like Europe to turn itself into a sort of United States, but I believe this to be a completely false-analogy.”

 Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was,

Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal – to accept as the ultimate goal– political federation in Europe, including ourselves.”

Later on (column1501), Mr Gaitskell says,

“There is the question of a common currency, which is mentioned in various quarters as something to which we must look forward.  In my opinion, it is idle to speak about a common currency until there is a common government, and the idea of not being in control of our own currency, and having it subject to a supranational or international gathering, would be quite wrong, and I hope that, equally, will be made abundantly plain.”

On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735), Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with

reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people – M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty – and it looks as though this government might – they are on their way towards complete political integration.”

I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—“

Mr A. C. Manuel, A Council.”

Mr Shinwell, “I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led.”

On 16th November 1966 (Column 446), I quote just a couple of comments from the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown, on the subject of joining the EEC,

The issue today is not do we join Europe – (who does he remind you of?) we have always been there. The issue is can we play such a role that from here on the continent shall be unified and we shall be effectively a leader of it?”

And a little later on (Column 488) he says,

We could clearly play a much greater role from within the Community, in influencing these affairs than we can play from outside”.

 I now turn to Sir D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966 (Column474)

On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament.  For many years this country has practised a system of price support. It may or may not be the best system, but it has operated for 20 years with the assent of both sides of the House, etc, etc.”

But the constitutional question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the system.  That would be irrelevant because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of decision passes from this House.”

I now turn to the political and constitutional aspects, of which there are two. First, there is the immediate affect of adherence to the Treaty on British sovereignty, and secondly, the future question whether membership of the Community carries any implied or inescapable commitment to political federation in the future?”

On the second of those matters, the position is clear as far as it goes; but our range of vision is necessarily limited. The Treaty, of course, carries no express commitment to future federation.  But the difficulty is that as time goes by, if we join the Community, the decision about federation would not be one of our own choosing so much as the will of others, because our arrangements would be so inextricably involved with those of the Community that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility in practice—though not impossible in theory– to dissociate ourselves from a supranational federation if our partners decide that they want it.” Etc, etc.

I come now to the other question relating to the political and constitutional aspect-the immediate consequences of signing the Treaty of Rome.  Here we can see the position much more clearly.  Two truths are apparent—first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and of our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved.”

(Column 478),

It is clear that Article (189) in respect of those Regulations this House can be nothing but a conduit pipe.  That will be its role. We cannot reject of even vary any of the regulations which are at present pouring out from Brussels.  The collective law of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and Courts alike would be powerless to intervene.  That would be a heavy price to pay for Membership of the Community.”

The British people may, in the event, pay it.  I do not presume to prophesy about that, but I do know that they should not be asked to pay it in ignorance.  It is a mistake to assume that the British people are interested only in the economic bread and butter aspects of this matter.  It is a mistake to assume that they are not interested in these great political and constitutional matters.  I know, of course, that terms like “sovereignty” are not part of the every day idiom of the British people; but the represent things which are long-established and cherished.  They are like the air we breath – little noticed in its presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation.”

 There is therefore, a duty on the Government of explanation and instruction, a duty not to gloss over these political and constitutional consequences.”

Mr Stanley Orme, 16th November 1966 (Column 489),

I want first to consider the European situation. At a private meeting in the House, M. Spaak, who was prominent in the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers down the spine’s of some of my Hon Friends who are very pro-European.  M. Spaak’s political concept is that of many statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France, (General de Gaulle, who wanted a Europ des Patries) It is the political issue which we must seriously consider.”

M. Spaak is against the entry of any neutrals. He regards the Community purely as an extension of the militarily based N.A.T.O. a further extension of a military alliance.  I do not attribute those views to all of my Hon Friends who favour entry, but I do know that there are many Hon Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the Community not just as an economic unit but as a political unit too.  They regard it as a supranational authority of which Britain should be a part.”

Page 492, still Mr Orme,

It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market.  This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people.  It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on the economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services.  It has also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled.  The Community is undemocratic.”

Mr Jennings, 16th November 1966 (Column 495),

I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome.  It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union.  I have no objection to economic arrangements, even a negotiated economic union, provided we get certain safeguards.  But I am horrified when I am told that I am as British as ever because I do not want to be a European first.  I want to be British first and European after.  Is there any shame of disgrace in wanting to be British first?  It is therefore the implications and consequences of economic union of which I am frightened.”

We know quite well that five or six years ago, when we debated the question in this House, the sentiment in most of those who supported going into the Market was eventually for a political alignment and a politically united Europe. They do not deny it. They are quite honest.  Even Members who are here tonight are nodding their heads on agreement.  They know that this is what they want.  That is what frightens me.”

The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet.”

It is almost a sin to talk about it.  Apparently we have got to get into the Community, because of the mess we are in, in order to live as a nation. ‘Oh thou of little faith’,. Have we lost faith in our own selves?  Have we lost pride in our own ability even to stand alone?”

Page 497,

“My Rt. Hon and leaned friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith who five years ago most expertly, throughout the country and in this House, exposed what the loss of sovereignty would be, has touched upon it and given us the gist of it this afternoon. But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt.  I mean questions of social services, benefits, rates of contributions, the position of the trade unions and all that sort of thing. How much loss of sovereignty of this House will there be?”

It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe. That is the way that it is put over to the electorate.  “Let us go into Europe”. Is the theme.  We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean?  Do we mean trade?  Is that all?  Do we leave the other sort of things, the unmentionables? Under the carpet or push them under the bed, or where?  By going into Europe, do we mean in addition to the trade negotiations a form of federalism in which Britain would become a State in a United States of Europe, or part of Europe—what I have described as the rump of Europe?”

I am not in favour of a federal United States of Europe or binding ourselves in any direction like that.  I would look more kindly on a confederal system, if we had to have something like this.  The alternative is what is called federalism.”

I am not prepared to sign a blank cheque that would denude this House of its powers; nor can I support a central Parliament to which we would contribute electorally, a central Parliament in Europe. I ask the Rt Hon Gentleman who is to reply to this debate, if this question of sovereignty and all it means does not arise, will he tell us quite clearly, and if he does, will he tonight, or his Rt. Hon Friends tomorrow night, tell us how much loss of sovereignty is involved?”

16th November 1966 (Column 510), Mrs Renee Short,

I must add my view that many of those speaking in favour of going into the Common Market are tending to gloss over the problems and difficulties that would face us as a Nation.  This is not really being fair to the public outside this place whom we represent and who rely on us for leadership in this matter, and in connection with all the other important problems with which we as Members of Parliament have to deal.”

My own view on this issue of entering or not entering the Common Market we have been brainwashed for a long time.  I do not go along with this emotive phrase, Going into Europe”. As my Rt. Hon Friend said, we are in Europe; the question is what sort of Europe are we going into?  Enormous pressure has been exerted, not only by big business, which has obviously vested interests for going into Europe, but by the Press.” Etc, etc.

 Page 518, still Mrs Short.

“It is no use saying that if we go into the Common Market we should accept the Treaty of Rome as if it is written, with all the small print—most of which I find extremely alarming, including many articles which were referred to by the Rt. Hon and learned Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which refer to the power of the Commission to issue directives to Member States as to what they should do about their economy.  There are many of these articles (Interruption) Oh yes, there are. There are at least a dozen.  The Rt. Hon Gentleman gave some of the numbers.  They lay down clearly that the Commission can issue directives to Member States.  In the event of economic difficulties the Commission can issue directives about taxation, aid to nationalised industries, and many other matters which affect the economies of nations.”

It is no good saying, “It is all right.  We can accept this and when we get inside we shall be able to change the machinery.”  This is barking up the wrong tree.  If we go in we shall have precisely the same voting power–no more and no less, as West Germany, France or Italy, based on population. We shall therefore be faced with the possibility of being out-voted if three or four or five, of the existing Members decide to vote together on any issue.  We shall be able to speak and raise our voice, but our vote will not be decisive.”

 16th November 1966 (Column 530), Mr. A.J.Irvine,

“It will be found that there is strong opposition in this country and, I think, on this side of the House, to federalism, and I share that opposition.  There is certainly strong opposition to an excess of federalism, to any loss of identity of this Parliament, to any loss of sovereignty affecting foreign affairs, defence or certain aspects of our industrial and economic planning.”

The most interesting single feature of the Community at present is that, as I understand it, in our dislike of the federal solution we have a supporter in the President of France, and in the outlook of the French Government.  The President’s objections to federalism, which I share and which are enormously influential inside the Community, might in some respects neutralise his objection to our special relation with the United States.”

16th November 1966, Page 535, Sir Legge-Bourke,

The only respectable basis upon which anybody could be in favour of Britain’s entering the Common Market is by being at the same time entirely confederalist or federalist for Europe as a whole.  A study of the Treaty of Rome shows straight away that inevitable it will involve political changes of a federal kind.  How far and how fast and exactly how federal or confederal will be worked out as the years go by, but it is wrong to suppose that the Community can survive without a customs union being followed by a single currency, and it is wrong to suppose that the countries of the organisation can keep alive the vigour with which they started— and all credit to them— without developing politically with all this.  To make that supposition is to fail to face what is in the Treaty, or is deliberately to deceive the people.”

 I believe that the Treaty was conceived in a spirit of high federalism.  It was soon apparent to Europe that Britain was not overkeen on that idea, but Britain had to be brought in by the architects of the document. And so the whole thing was trimmed and as the negotiations developed, the emphasis was more and more on economics and less and less on the political side.”

I have long believed that the most important economic freedom for nations is the one freedom which was left out of the four Atlantic freedoms—the freedom of choice to do business with whomsoever one will on mutual beneficial terms.  In other words, this is the right to discriminate in trade.  This right was taken from us particularly by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by the first Labour Government after the war.  Again, I do not want to hark back over what happened after that.  I deeply regret that when it was returned to power the Conservative Party did not exercise the full rights which it had reserved through the mouth of Oliver Stanley and reassert our rights to alter our preferential tariffs and so on.”

8th May 1967 (Column 1088), The Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson,

I should like to deal before I come to the political issue.  One of them, on which certain anxieties have been expressed, is that the constitutional and legal implications for this country if we join the European Community.  Here again, our examination of the Treaties and the other law emanating from the European Institutions, but even more of the way in which member states have been applying Community law, taking full account of realities prevailing in the member states, has greatly reassured us about the possible implications for Britain.”

It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals.  By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry. Nothing in the Treaty would, for example, materially affect the general principles of the law of contract or tort or its Scottish equivalent, land law, the relations of landlord and tenant, housing, town and country planning, matrimonial law, or the law of inheritance.  The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course not be affected; not in any material sense will our criminal law.  The main affect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of commerce, Customs, restrictive practices and immigration and the operation of steel, coal and nuclear energy industries.”

8th May 1967 (Column 1109), Mr Turton,

The debate is historic, to follow the remarks of my Rt. Hon Friend, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume) It is historic because, if we join the Common Market, under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, NO Hon Member will be able to get up in this House and protest and vote against regulations which affect the economic or social welfare of his constituents.  For many of us that is the main reason why we take the view which we hold on this issue.”

Last November, I and many of my Rt, Hon Friends asked for a White Paper on the constitutional issues. We felt that they were what all the country should know about.  We have never had it.  We have never had a White Paper on the economic issues.  We have only had an article, a very fair and, I thought, damning article in The Times of last Monday.”

 (Column 1114),

I believe that acceptance of the Motion would lead to a betrayal of the Queen in Parliament, would be disloyal to our Commonwealth Members, and would put unendurable burdens on the British people.”

8th May 1967 (Column 1154), Mr Erec S. Heffer,

I also want us to go into the Community because I believe that a United States of Europe is absolutely essential, and I want to see a Socialist United States of Europe. That is the prospect.  I believe that we can get a socialist United States of Europe.”

Finally, I will finish with Mr Peter Shore (as he was then) on 22 February 1972 (column 1164),

When we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these arrangements are little short of a national disaster.  No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so clearly against and detrimental to our interests.  It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the Community under the “own resources” rule.  I do not say that was the Community’s purpose, but they have been extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have upon us.  Indeed, I cannot recall another example in history of a free country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so damaging to itself.”

Apart from being disastrous and unfair, these arrangements, as the Financial Secretary has made abundantly clear, constitutes a direct challenge to the most important power of Parliament, our exclusive control over taxation. As the Ways and Means Resolution makes clear, we shall permit the Community to tax the British people. We are acceding not just to the Treaty of Rome but to the Treaty of

Luxembourg of April 1970, which specifically authorised the Community to have its own resources and to receive the yield of the three taxes to which I have referred.”

That agreement was a major development in the Community and I found it extraordinary that, in our debate last week, neither the Solicitor General nor the Prime Minister had anything to say about it.  The Solicitor-General amused himself greatly by quoting from the 1967 White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of Britain joining the Common Market but, in his efforts to show that the constitutional innovation of the Communities having directly applicable law in the United Kingdom was known in 1967, he totally, and to me surprisingly, omitted to mention the second and even greater constitutional innovation which occurred in 1970: the right of the Communities to tax directly the Member States.”

For the Prime Minister to say, as he did last Thursday, that the constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961, when it was fully discussed in the House time and again, is stretching the truth to the greatest possible extent.”

This is a major development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament.  The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this country, alone has the right to levy taxation.  That has been the basic constitutional doctrine.  Because Parliament three centuries ago insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under the control of elected representatives.  As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the Government conditional on the remedying of grievances.  That was the way in which control by the House of Commons was brought about.”

There should be no doubt about what is intended here.  It is not proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities, which we can alter if we think it is too much or too little.  It is not a contribution at all.  The right to levy taxes, which are specified, is to be ceded to non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of Parliament of the British people. As the Ways and Means Resolution puts it, we shall be, giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities” That is quite unacceptable to us.”

There are more, many, many more pages of these debates; for the debates on our entry into the Community cover a great many number of years. I hope I have proved, without a shadow of doubt, that most, if not all Members of Parliament knew what the Community was eventually, step by step, to become.  Many Members of Parliament wanted to join, many did not. Again without a doubt, the truth of what the Community was to become was kept from the people of this Country. This was a complete betrayal to ALL in this Country.  Today’s politicians can find out the true facts of our history regarding this County’s entry into the European Community in exactly the same way that I have.  It just takes time and patience. It is all recorded, every sordid detail, (Britain’s shame) in Hansard.

No matter how long ago these events took place, the Members of Parliament that are still alive, should and must be made accountable for their actions, in the same way that ‘today’s’ MPs will surely be.

Britain’s Suicide Note

Britain is to cease to exist as an independent nation and this has come out on a voluntary basis.  In other words, we, as a nation, are effectively committing suicide.

What have we given up?

  • We had the greatest empire the world has ever known and, having turned it into a Commonwealth with The Queen as its Head, we subsequently turned our backs on its 54 countries with a population of about a billion people, by abandoning Commonwealth preferential trade, in favour of the so called advantages of local trade in Europe.
  • We have also given up on our own sovereignty, or the right to be an independent nation with its people choosing their government, when necessary.  Instead, about 72% of our laws come directly from Brussels and are incorporated into our legal system without us being able to do anything about it.

Our Politicians call this “sharing sovereignty” which is nonsense, as, like virginity, sovereignty cannot be shared!

We have given up our democratic right to govern ourselves in favour of governed by permanent, unelected and unremovable bureaucrats, deciding our future from their headquarters in Brussels.

We have given up our financial independence and even sold two thirds of our gold reserves at $280 per ounce and switched into Euros, to show solidarity and loyalty to our new masters, the European Union.  We now pay about £50m per day to those bureaucrats for the “privilege” of being governed by them.

Why did we do this?

Because our own British elected politicians did it for us without telling us what was happening, and hoped we did not notice until it was too late.

When did it start?

After the Second World War when we saved France and the rest of Europe from Germany under Hitler.

 Who now governs us?

The EU, which is now run by France & Germany since the Treaty of the Elysee on 22nd January 1963, whereby they agreed to be the heart of Europe and have acted together ever since.

What was the starting point?

The European Coal and Steel Community in March 1951 — a single market amongst six countries in Europe, including Germany and France.

Next there was The Treaty of Rome in 1957.

This set up the European Economic Community (EEC), known as The Common Market.  The Common Market sounds like economic co-operation only, but the treaty set up all the machinery of a single super state, including Council of Ministers, an executive Commission, a Parliament, a legal system based on continental law and headed by a European Court of Justice, a Central Bank and a tax system called VAT.  There was also a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), although fishing was not yet included.  There was no way of changing any parts of the treaty unless all signatories agreed to do so.

The European Court of Justice was set up to give judgements which must always be in favour of closer political union.  This court had little to do with “justice” and much to do with “Integration”. It should have, more accurately, been called the European Court of Integration.

This treaty, and all the others following, were drafted in accordance with the “Acquis Communitaire” system, “that which is acquired by the Community.”  It means power, once handed to Brussels, is never returned, and cannot be renegotiated.

The European Communities Act of 1972

In 1972 Edward Heath pushed through Parliament the European Communities Act.  This Act was not an international treaty, but an Act of Parliament deciding that it no longer was the supreme authority for lawmaking in this country.  This Act was passed in conjunction with Britain applying for membership of the “Common Market” or European Economic Community (EEC).  The public were never told about the consequences of this Act.

In the famous ”Metric Martyr” High Court judgement 29 years later, in the spring of 2001, Judge Morgan ruled that because of this Act “We are now living under a new legal ORDER.  Parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972.  The doctrine of the primacy of European Law holds good. European laws have over-riding force with priority over our law.” This judgement was confirmed on appeal.

Britain joins the EEC on January 1st 1973

Unbeknown to the British electorate, Edward Heath, in order to gain membership of the EEC, had made a deal in 1972 with the EEC and gave away British sovereignty of our territorial fishing waters.  Up to that point fishing had not been included in any treaties, but was later added in the Maastricht Treaty under Articles 38-47.

Our Referendum in 1975

Harold Wilson, after campaigning in the 1974 General Election on the basis of wanting to renegotiate our terms of EEC entry, gave us a referendum.  The referendum was on whether or not we were happy with the “renegotiated terms” to approve Britain’s 1973 entry into the EEC under the Treaty of Rome.  In fact there were no changes at all to the terms of entry, and the treaty itself was unchanged

 He strongly advised the country to vote YES, giving so called “trade” reasons, and directly reassuring us that there would be no loss of sovereignty. This we did, on a low vote of only 47%. There has never been another referendum in the last 35 years.  Now, nobody below the age of 53 has ever had the chance to vote on a referendum on how this country should be governed.

The Single European Treaty of 1986

This treaty was signed by Margaret Thatcher who later said that she had been tricked into signing it. But Article “A” says the purpose of it was “ever closer union”, which is in line with the earlier Treaty of Rome.

The treaty changed the Common Market or EEC to the European Community, with the word “Economic” left out.  It also removed the national veto in certain areas by the principal of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers.  It also introduced European control over lawmaking, employment, regional development, environment and foreign policy.

The Merchant Shipping Act of 1988

This was not an international treaty but a normal Parliamentary procedure which went through the House of Commons and the Lords and received the Queen’s Royal Assent.  This act regulated amongst other things, the allocation of our reduced fishing quotas in British waters to British registered trawlers at the expense of the foreign fleet.  The Act was declared illegal by the European Court of Justice and Britain was fined, and also had to pay compensation to Spanish trawler owners, at a total cost to this country of £100m.  The conservative Government meekly paid up, with taxpayers’ money, without a murmur, so as not to alert the public what a disaster we faced.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1993

The official name is: Treaty on European Union. Agreed by John Major, it changed the European Community to the European Union.  Article 8 made all citizens of the United Kingdom citizens of the European Union, including Her Majesty the Queen, and could be deemed as an act of treason by any who signed it, including Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, and Francis Maude who both formally signed the document.

Indeed, a citizen’s charge of treason was taken out against them by Norris McWhirter, of Guiness Book of Records fame.  This was successful in the magistrates’ court, but the case then had to go to a higher court.  At this point, the Attorney General in the conservative government exercised his power to take over any private citizen’s right to go to law, and having replaced Norris McWhirter, he failed to take it any further, thus ending the treason procedure against Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude.

The treaty created obligations of its citizens to the newly created European Union, or, EU, but did not state what they are.  That was left to the European Court of Justice to decide.  The ECJ was officially given full authority by the treaty, to be the Supreme Court of Europe, under articles 169-172.

 The Maastrict Treaty introduced regionalisation throughout Europe, whereby the whole of the EU is split up into Regions to be directly governed by Brussels, bypassing Westminster through the secretive Committee of the Regions.  Britain is now just 12 regions in Europe, and both British local and parliamentary government is being gradually replaced in power and influence.  London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are 4 of the 12 regions, with England broken up into 9 separate EU regions.  You will have noticed how services such as health, ambulances, planning guidance and now policing are now being regionalised along these lines.  The treaty officially confirmed the creation of the EU fishing waters, although by arrangement with Brussels, Britain had already had agreed that EU fishing boats, the vast majority of which are Spanish, could fish in British waters.  From then onwards British waters holding over 70% of Europe’s fish stocks became EU waters, with Britain being allocated, under the new quota system, about 12½% of the annual catch, devastating UK fishing.

The introduction of regulations was provided by the treaty.  Regulations issued by the European Commission have immediate effect in all countries, without being debated in any national parliament.  An example is Regulation 3760/92 which decreed that from 1st January 2003, EU fishing boats would be able to fish right up to our shores, thus abolishing our 12 mile limit. Directives, on the other hand, are notionally debated before being incorporated into UK law, after being adjusted or “gold plated” by the government.  The break up of the Post Office is because of EU Directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC which have undermined the Royal Mail, and EU state aid rules which have lead directly to the closure of 2,500 Post Offices in this country.  The government and opposition politicians, apart from an honourable few, hardly ever mentioned this in their arguments over the current problems facing the Royal Mail.

Regulations will gradually replace directives as more power goes to Brussels.

The treaty also introduced the notion of a Common Defence Policy and a single currency.  We all know about the currency, but have you noticed the BBC talking about the European Navy patrolling the seas of Somalia, when the ship doing so is clearly a Royal Navy frigate acting under orders from its HQ in Brussels?  Are we prepared to fight for a European state?

In the early 1990s Britain entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in preparation for joining the Euro single currency.  However, we entered at the wrong rate, and in attempting to maintain a fixed rate for the pound we suffered, in the following years, high interest rates reaching 15%, unemployment rising from 1.5m to 3m, and 100,000 businesses going bankrupt.  To avoid total monetary collapse and the loss of all our reserves to the speculators, Britain was forced to leave the ERM and float the pound.  The pound has been floating happily ever since.  However, the European Commission intends that Britain should be in the European currency, because there cannot be full political union without monetary union.

The Treaty of Amsterdam of 1999

just an amending treaty,” Tony Blair.

Signed by Tony Blair in Rome, it place EU control over further areas of British law, and established Europol, the EU state security service, which, is above the law, and cannot be sued, whatever damage they do in the exercise of their activities.  Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, makes the point that even the KGB did not enjoy this immunity.  Europol comes into being, with full authority as an EU agency, on January 1st 2010.

 Treaty of Nice in 2001

Signed again by Tony Blair, giving up another 39 vetoes on areas of British life.  It introduced Corpus Juris which was an interpretation of continental law, to replace British Law such as Habeas Corpus, whereby a person cannot be held in custody for more than 96 hours without being charged. Under Corpus Juris, a suspect can be held in custody for up to six months without charge, and then a further three months in custody without trial.

The concept of the accused being assumed to be innocent, unless proved guilty in a Court, will go. Already in EU civil law, the responsibility has fallen on the accused to prove his innocence.  The entitlement of a person charged with a criminal offence to be tried by a jury, will also go.

Under the EU Arrest Warranty, any citizen can be extradited to another EU country on suspicion of committing an act which is not an offence in this country.  He can be put in prison while waiting to be charged or to be put on trial by a magistrate or judge.  308 UK citizens were extradited in this way in 2008, according to the charity Fair Trial International.

Article 191 grants the EU power to withdraw or prevent funding, private, state or at EU level, for political parties deemed “unsuitable”.  This means that the EU can suspend or ban a political party if it so decides. This could first apply to EU-critical parties and is associated with the laws of a police state.

The European Constitution Treaty of 2004

This was signed by Blair and was intended to be the second Treaty of Rome and the last treaty necessary to give Brussels full control of Europe with the creation of “The United States of Europe”.

The new state would have its own entity as a country, with its own Foreign Policy and its own embassies throughout the world.  The member states would cease to exist as such and would end up as mere regions within the new state.  In other words, the EU’s Foreign Office will not be at the service of the nation states, but will supplant them. This is now being enacted through the EU’s Brok Report and with its new Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton.

The European Commission would take full executive powers for itself, would choose its own members who could not be removed.  Furthermore, the Commission, if it so decided, would be able to change or “amend” any existing arrangements in the same way as Hitler did with his Enabling Act in 1933.  In other words, the Commission was effectively given the powers of a legally appointed dictatorship.

The European Council, representing the heads of all the member states and acting as a form of trustee for the EU, would become merely a Senate, or talking shop, with no remaining powers.

Tony Blair was eventually persuaded to agree to have a referendum on the new constitution to ratify his signature.  This forced France and Holland to do the same, and as they were likely to vote yes, this would persuade Britain to do likewise.  To the horror of the politicians, both France and Holland voted decisively against the treaty and this killed off the project for the time being.  It also let off Mr Blair from having a referendum in Britain.

 Meanwhile in the General Election of 2005, two months before the French referendum, all three main parties in the UK promised in their manifestos, that if voted into power, they would give the voters a referendum on a constitutional treaty.

The European Reform Treaty of 2007 (The Lisbon Treaty, now a Constitution)

After the demise of the constitutional treaty of 2004, the European politicians gradually recovered from the shock of the French and Dutch reversals and set up the Lisbon Treaty which, they said, was not a constitutional treaty at all.  It was instead, merely a “tidying up exercise”, to help the European Commission be more “efficient” in governing the enlarged Europe of 27 nations.  The Eastern Lib Dem MEP and avowed federalist, Andrew Duff, co-wrote this treaty/constitution.

In order to be more “efficient” in governing, it does help to be a dictatorship.  A dictatorship does not have to use uptime and energy in consulting or listening to the people, or ever risking a general election.

The word “reform” was put into the treaty to enable the previous treaties to be reformed or adjusted, and more importantly, to make it look less like its predecessor of 2004.  The actual wording of the European Reform Treaty is very difficult to understand because it keeps referring to previous treaties, and the reader has no way of really grasping what it means without the help of an experienced constitutional lawyer.  Few ordinary Members of Parliament could master what it really meant.

However, the experts who did understand what it was about, included Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the ex French President and author of the “dead” constitution of 2004, who said it was virtually the same.  Indeed, out of 250 articles, only 10 were different from its predecessor.  The key self amending clause was retained in the treaty under article 48.  This is extremely dangerous as it allows EU Ministers to amend the treaty behind closed doors with no further need for parliamentary approval of referenda.

The main differences were the lack of the word “constitution” in the name which was replaced by the word “reform”, the removal of the 12 star national flag and the EU “Ode to Joy” anthem from the text.  The two latter items have already been added back to all EU procedures currently taking place.

The Irish were required by their own constitution to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and this took place in 2008.  Again, much to the consternation of the politicians the Irish voted NO in their referendum.  However, in the summer of 2009, Brussels again presented to Ireland the same referendum on the unchanged treaty with the “invitation” to vote again.

The Irish voted YES this time around, and once Poland and the Czech Republic reluctantly followed Ireland, without a referendum, the treaty was finally ratified by the politicians (but not by the peoples) of all EU countries and became law on December 1st 2009.

Meanwhile, Britain was denied the right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, affecting the entire future of this country, by Gordon Brown, the leader of the Labour Government who denied that the treaty was the same as the constitution treaty.  He was aided by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and both of them instructed their parties to vote directly against what each party had promised in their 2005 manifestos, namely, to have a referendum on any constitutional changes affecting Britain. Between them, they broke their election promises and forced our Westminster Parliament to vote its parliamentary sovereignty into oblivion, or into the hands of unelected bureaucrats to govern us without us being able to remove them.

 The Lisbon Treaty does include virtually all the terms of its predecessor, the 2004 Constitutional Treaty, which has been described earlier, and will be the last treaty required.  There will not be any need for further treaties because the European Commission has now acquired all the powers it needs.  The Commission has become a legally created Dictatorship although the way it was done leaves very serious doubts about the whole concept of a truly United Europe.

How did the politicians get away with it?

Because it was done so slowly, we did not notice.  It was so boring and complicated that we ignored it.  The politicians lied to us all along, yet we believed them. This was just as Jean Monnet had planned in the 1950s.

The future

The Conservative Party have gone back on the now infamous “cast iron guarantee” and have told us that they will now not hold any referendum.  They will merely try to stop further powers going to the EU in the foreseeable future, and seek to negotiate aspects of treaties.  However, this is impossible as there is no prevision for it under EU laws.  We must see what happens if they get into power in our Westminster Parliament. They will find themselves up against European law which they must obey if they wish to remain in the European Union.

Two perfect examples of this will be: First, when we are required by the Commission to give up the pound and enter the euro money system.  This is a requirement of both the 2004 Constitution and more importantly the Lisbon Treaty.  One of its clauses states that “the currency of the Union shall be the Euro”, and you cannot be more plain than that.  There is going to be a political explosion when it happens.  The Conservatives can do nothing about it except make a decision to join the Euro against all their promises to the electorate or take the opportunity to make a final break and leave the EU, which any country can still do under the terms of Lisbon.  The second example could arise if the Commission “requires” Britain to change over to driving on the right, which the Commission can do as it has dictatorial powers over us, and from its point of view, is the logical thing to do. After all, you can hardly have part of a single country driving on the left, with the rest driving on the right.

You may think that this is an exaggeration and the whole thing is becoming farcical.  But it is no more farcical than a previously sovereign country, such as ours, committing suicide, which Britain seems to have done.

If you wish to embarrass your MP, ask whether his or her loyalty is to the Queen or to the new President of Europe.  After all, the Queen is now a citizen of the EU.

Did you know that the Commission has appointed 7 ex-communists, including Mr Barroso, the current Chairman?  Mrs Merkel, from East Germany, is another.

Did you know that the terms of the Lisbon Treaty introduced the death penalty in certain circumstances?  The terms are tucked away in an obscure place (a footnote attached to a footnote) and have not yet been noticed by the Labour or Liberal Parties who voted for it.

What is a wasted vote?  A wasted vote for a party with those policies you do not agree.  Anyone who does not wish to be a part of the EU and votes for any of the three main parties is wasting their vote.  For those who do not want to be governed by the EU, it does not matter which party they vote for as each of those three parties will keep us in the EU and under total EU control.

If a Europhile tells you that three million jobs in Britain depend on the EU, just remind them that four million jobs in Europe depend on exports to Britain.  80% of Britain’s trade is generated internally, with 20% being exports and imports.  Of this 20%, only about 9% is with countries in the EU and 11% is with the rest of the world.  As Britain has a large trade deficit with the EU, and its single largest trading partner, it is hardly likely that trade would suffer if we left the EU.

Switzerland and Norway are in Europe but not in the EU, and are two of the richest European countries per head.  The benefits of trade with the EU can be retained by a free trade agreement – the EU has such agreements with many countries and the Swiss francs are spared import tax in theirs.  Their own government found that being outside the EU cost 600m Swiss francs but saved 3.4 billion francs each year.  The EU needs Britain for trade more than we need the EU trade.

Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident who spent 12 years in a gulag said, “Remember, I have lived your future and it does not work.”

We have been warned.  We have just begun to live in a totalitarian regime, although many people do not yet realise this.

Can we leave the European Union?

Yes We Can!

Under the British Constitution, no Parliament can bind its successors, so a new parliament can quickly overturn all the EU treaties signed to date and repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which gave parliamentary approval for joining the then EEC.

The Lisbon Treaty for the first time defines a mechanism for withdrawal in Article 50.2. However, the terms would be set by the EU to make things as difficult as possible   for the applicant state.

The likely arrangements for leaving would be:

  •   The UK Parliament would rescind all previous EU treaties under the basic rule of our constitution that “No parliament can bind its successors.”
  •   Parliament would therefore repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and all subsequent EU legislation, thereby returning to the people the power to appoint our government.
  •  Having repealed the European Communities Act of 1972 the British Government, being sovereign, would inform the European Commission that Britain is leaving the EU immediately and would henceforth no longer be subjected to any EU directives or regulations.  This action would no doubt cause considerable fury and dire threats from the European Commission but it could do nothing about it as Britain would no longer be a member.  Any action such as imposing tariffs would be illegal under World Trade Organisation (WTO) guidelines.

Having officially left the European Union, Parliament could at last govern this country as it was elected to do.  Probably its first task would be to negotiate a trade deal with the EU from a position of strength and independence.

Parliament’s next task would be to unravel all the unnecessary directives and regulations from the 120,000 laws imposed on us by the European Commission.  This would release an enormous amount of energy and enterprise that is stifled by current legislation.  It would get Britain going again, and allow considerable cuts in red tape on businesses and lower taxes for citizens and businesses alike.

Result

We would be a democratic, deregulated, competitive offshore haven, with lower taxes, less bureaucracy and very much richer too.  It is never too late to do the right thing.

by James Carver