eurealist.co.uk

The Working time directive that Mr Major obtained an op-out, but much to his dismay was later sneaked in under ARTICLE 118A. In a letter to the then commission President Jaques Santer Mr Major made his disappointment at this abrogation of the agreement very clear….

ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maascricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of state and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.

However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article I 18a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.

That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government₁ and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.

The fact is before Major could implement his threat, Labour won the next election and Tony Blair with his policy of being at the heart of the EU dropped the objection and signed up to the directive anyway, a clear instance where one government may not bind a subsequent one.

The Working time Directive is has now returned to haunt us, in a leaked European Commission proposal, the Commission has started to tighten the screws on the freedom of the labour market. Insisting that no one may work more than 65 hours a week and placing severe restrictions on any employees who wishes to work more than 48 hours. The proposal is that if unions must be consulted before any opt out can be obtained by the employee and that then the employee must reapply each month to have the op-out extended.

Employers are concerned that the limits on working time will harm the flexibility of the UK labour market. John Cridland, from the CBI - a leading employers’ organisation in the UK, said, “These proposals are totally unacceptable. The Commission is trying to impose a Franco-German style of industrial relations through the back door.

But unions say the proposals do not go far enough to protect workers. John Monks, the Secretary-General of the European Trades Union Confederation (ETUC) described the document as “a complete cave-in to the British Government.

In this one size fits all EU state we are embroiled in, the freedom to choose how we live our lives is being eroded by those we do not elect and cannot remove. It matters not a jot to these people that we may wish to arrange our lives in a different way, we must obey their rules.

The British Government is elected by the British people, if they decide we should only work a specified length of time each week, so be it, if we are not happy with their policy, we can get rid of them at the next election, and the following administration will not be bound by the rules, in the EU it matters not who we elect they must obey the EU rules.

Now who was it who said Britain is still a sovereign country, and for those of you who think limiting working times is a good social policy, I do not take an opposing view, but I do contest the fact the we British people are not allowed to make these decisions for ourselves, we are after all supposed to be born free.

We now have a government that seems intent upon changing the British Constitution, the restructuring of the House of Lords, although it could well be argued the lottery of birth should not be an invitation to be part of our parliament, has dangers, in that if the hereditary peers are being replaced by the present governments yes-men, then one part of our Constitutional safeguard is lost. If the power of privilege is placed in the hands of the prime minister of the day, then those appointed owe allegiance and cannot be considered independent.

Now we have Lord Falconer the Constitution Secretary beginning the mammoth ask of taking “The Constitutional Reform Bill” with 111 clauses followed by 190 pages of schedules through both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Falconer said. There was no doubt that the role of the Lord Chancellor should change, he claimed. The office holder would be the head of a significant Government department, but with a special obligation to put the values of justice, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law above partisan considerations.

On the face of it there is nothing wrong with ensuring the separation of the judiciary from the legislators, but part of the law lord’s role in the upper house is to ensure that proposed legislation conforms to the Constitution. This power is now to be passed to the likes of Lord Falconer, a political appointee the suggestion is that the minister responsible for courts and the rule of law should be called the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. There would apparently be no need for the Secretary of State to be a lawyer or to sit in the House of Lords; he would also not sit as a judge; which is probably a good thing if he does not need to be a lawyer.

So it appears that the person who is to be charged with looking after the Constitution and ensuring the Government of the day does not overstep its authority is to be appointed by the same government and owe his place to that government. This is yet another other British Constitutional safeguards gone.

We are now being ruled by nothing more than an elected dictatorship, the other political parties are obviously in favour of this continued destruction of the Constitution we see no outcry of objection from either the Liberals or the Conservatives, we see no Law Lords standing up and defending a thousand year old method of government, that is the British Constitution.

Recently our parliamentary representatives have claimed that their own rules for parliamentary procedure form the basis of an unwritten Constitution for the British Isles. Therefore any rules they decide to change has the effect of also changing the Constitution. This is an erroneous claim, parliamentarians do not and have never had the power vested in them to change the British Constitution.

The Constitutional obligation is contracted by all Crown servants who are bound to comply with their oaths of allegiance and office in obedience to our Constitutional law. The fact that no one can sit in the Commons without first taking the oath of allegiance was confirmed recently when some Northern Irish elected members refused to take the oath, they were not allowed to take their seats.

The public trust placed in our politicians is a matter of contract and law requiring them to perform this duty. It preserves our spiritual and civil rights and properties, It creates a legal duty to maintain the Constitution at all times. It is upon these principles that powers of governance are founded.

Parliament has never been vested with absolute power; such abuse of power as featured in the divine right of kings was abolished by the settlement of 1689. This contracted the Monarchy and government to the Constitutional constraint of limited and defined power and remains in force today and may not be lawfully ignored or overturned. The removal of the divine right of kings did not give divine right to parliamentarians.

The settlement of the Glorious Revolution 1689 reasserted ’supremacy’ of legitimate power in the ‘rule of law’. It did not give supremacy to the Monarch or to Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Executive or the Crown in Parliament. It sought to maintain the power in ‘the rule of law’ and uphold the liberty of the people. It laid down some of the people’s basic rights. These rights were fixed so that Parliament’s concern is perpetually and independently to maintain them and not to weaken them.

No Parliament can ever legitimately get round the constitution. The contract of our Constitution utterly forbids any encroachments upon its provisions. Thus our Constitution lays down the fundamental duty for all in authority to follow. This duty has always been a requirement to holding any office of the Crown and is designed to protect the people from unconstitutional assertions of power. The rule of law enshrines accountability in the administration with ultimate enforcement in the hands of the people, not those who govern.

The freedom of self-determination under our own law is our guaranteed birthright. It is not something for mere transitory politicians or for that matter any one generation to give away even by referendum. The rule of law itself is guaranteed to us by contract for eternity. It is bound by the law to be the only means by which we may be governed.

The misconception that Parliament rightfully enjoys unencumbered power now threatens entirely to emasculate our Constitution and the rule of law itself.

Autocracy and authoritarianism like all despotic powers will prosper where the ability to legislate and the power to enforce, fall into solitary hands or that of an unaccountable executive or body. To overcome this trap into which so many nations have fallen, our Constitution has evolved with separation of powers designed to provide vital security against oppression.

Three fundamental divisions of our Constitution are:
1. Independence of the judiciary,
2. Presumption of innocence and habeas corpus with the right to trial by jury,
3. Constitutional limitation of power imposed on the Crown and Parliament. (eg. Coronation Oath / Bill of Rights)

A basic principle of a constitution is to provide a fixed standard by which the constitutionality of power asserted may be checked and redressed if found wanting.

To ensure the supremacy of the rule of law it is essential to have autonomous judges who are not part of the legislature. Where a judiciary and legislature are united, subjugation may take hold especially when those who govern decide to pass judgement in their own cause, how can a judge sit in judgement on himself.