eurealist.co.uk

The constitution Article I-10: Union law
1. The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s Institutions in
exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of
the Member States.
2. Member States shall take all appropriate measures, general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations flowing from the Constitution or
resulting from the Union Institutions’ acts.

From the governments GUIDE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
Once an EU law is agreed by all member countries it takes precedence over laws of the member countries. This is known as the primacy of European law. Britain accepted this principle when we joined in 1973 and we have supported it ever since.
Without it, any country could ignore European decisions that it disliked by passing national laws to undermine them. That would make European agreements pointless. So when laws have been agreed at European level, all EU member countries’ laws - including British laws - must be consistent with them.

Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture

What happens if a provision of Community law conflicts with a rule of national law? Such a conflict between Community law and national law can be settled only if one gives way to the other. Community legislation contains no express provision on the question. None of the Community treaties contains a provision stating, for example, that Community law overrides national law.

After all, precious little would remain of the Community legal order if it were to be subordinated to national law. Community rules could be set aside by any national law. There would no longer be any question of the uniform and equal application of Community law in all Member States.

So this concept of the primacy of EU law over British law has never before been agreed by any British Government. Britain has in fact allowed the primacy of EU Law by not arguing against it but the only reason we have this concept in the first place is because the ECJ says so.

In ‘Costa v ENEL’, the Court made two important observations regarding the relationship between community law and national law:
1. The Member States have definitively transferred sovereign rights to a Community created by them. They cannot reverse this process by means of subsequent unilateral measures which are inconsistent with the Community concept.
2. It is a principle of the Treaty that no Member State may call into question the status of Community law as a system uniformly and generally applicable throughout the Community.
The Court has since consistently upheld this finding and has, in fact, developed it further in one respect. Whereas the ‘Costa’ judgment was concerned only with the question of the primacy of Community law over ordinary national laws, the Court confirmed the principle of primacy also with regard to the relationship between Community law and national constitutional law.

So although no government has agreed to this we have the primacy of EU law the reason it is necessary is because

“Without it, any country could ignore European decisions that it disliked by passing national laws to undermine them. That would make European agreements pointless. So when laws have been agreed at European level, all EU member countries’ laws - including British laws - must be consistent with them”.

However, the constitutional courts of Germany and Italy initially refused to accept the primacy of Community law over national constitutional law, in particular regarding the guaranteed protection of fundamental rights. They withdrew their objections only after the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order had reached a standard that corresponded in essence to that of their national constitutions. In its judgment of 12 October 1993.

In other words the constitutional courts in Germany and Italy did not accept the principal of the Supremacy of EU law, EU law in fact had to reflect their Constitutional rights not the other way round, this principal was confirmed later with the Treaty of Maastricht, when the German Constitutional Court made it quite clear that it had not in any way‘ surrendered’ its jurisdiction in determining the applicability of secondary Community legislation in Germany, and only the German Constitutional Court is competent to decide that issue - and concern matters in which, in the opinion of the German court, the treaty gives it authority.

The constitutional court also made it clear that it did not accept as valid within Germany any Community legal act which had been adopted merely because of the ‘useful effect’ of Community powers and on the basis of a broad interpretation of this concept. It was therefore the task of the constitutional court to examine whether legal acts of
Community bodies and institutions remained within or exceeded the limits of Germany’s sovereign rights.

So the EU Supremacy in Law is not as the British government would like us to believe something that we accepted as part of the EU treaties, it is something imposed by the ECJ and cannot have the effect the government say, of making all states obey the same laws because Germany, and to a certain extent Italy have refused to accept the principal, which must mean that it is entirely in our own governments province to either accept or reject any laws emanating from the EU

The government tells us that as the primacy of EU law has been in place since 1972 obviously relying on the possible establishment of legal custom as a means to say that as it is established custom we must accept it.

However there are considerable limitations on its becoming established in the context of Community law, however.
The first is the existence of a special procedure for the amendment of the Treaties (Article 48 EU). This does not rule out the possible emergence of legal custom, but it does make the criteria according to which a practice is deemed to have been followed and accepted for a substantial period much harder to meet. Another hurdle to the establishment of legal custom in the Community institutions is the fact that any action by an institution may derive its validity only from the Treaties, and not from that institution’s actual conduct or any intention on its part to create legal relations. This means that, at the level of the Treaties, legal custom can under no circumstances be established by the Community institutions.

The proposed “constitution” will however formally enshrine the primacy of EU law. The British government claims that EU “law” is already supreme But that is not so. It is quite clear that the ECJ, which as a creature of a treaty among sovereign powers, cannot then tell those sovereign powers that they are no longer sovereign. And the German Constitutional Court, has on several occasions made it clear that German law is supreme in Germany rejecting the principal and the claims by the ECJ.

In Britain, we do not have a constitutional court the ultimate constitutional authority is the sovereign. It is perfectly open to the Queen to instruct judges, that it is their duty to disregard the pretensions of the EU unless the Crown-in-Parliament specifically tells them not to, and to try cases on the basis of the law of the land and on that basis alone. In so doing, she and her government would in no way be breaching the current EU treaty, for there is nothing in that treaty that supports the claims made by the ECJ.

But all that would change dramatically if the EU Constitution were ratified.
In the Coronation Oath, the sovereign swears before God to preserve the laws and customs of her people. The EU constitution is inconsistent with the preservation of these laws and customs. If the Queen accepts it, then we would be well within our rights as a people, to reopen the constitutional debates of 1688. The doctrine of the Glorious Revolution was that James II, by subverting the laws and customs of England, contrary to his Coronation Oath, was guilty of perjury and was deemed to have abdicated. So it is obvious that by accepting this EU Constitution the Queen will in fact be accepting that her agreement with the people of Britain no longer has any standing, by so doing she will be divesting herself and her line from the monarchy of Great Britain.

The Fat Cats EU Club II

Why Britain needs the constitutional treaty
To modernise the way Europe works, so it can advance our common interests more effectively while respecting national differences and becoming more accountable to its peoples.

1. Simpler – The treaty consolidates existing EU treaties into a single
document, simplifying and clarifying the rules of the European club.

Hardly simple the Constitution also:
abolishes national control in nearly 30 new policy areas. re-founds the EU on the basis of its own State Constitution. The power of the EU will flow directly from the Constitution not the member states, it also brings in the,removes the national democracy and political independence of the Member States. Legally and politically they are being turned into provinces of an EU State,
It gives greater power to Germany and Fance, more centralisation in Brussels and less power for national parliaments. It establishes an EU Foreign Minister and diplomatic service, separate from those of its Member States, an EU Public Prosecutor able to prosecute people across national boundaries. Forbids Member States to operate an independent foreign policy. Greatly extends the scope and reach of the EU by giving its Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to determine the fundamental rights of EU citizens, overriding national Constitutions and Supreme Courts, opens the way for ever further expansion of EU powers at the expense of national parliaments and the citizens that elect them, without the need for their prior consent.

2. A union of nation states, not a superstate – The treaty sets limits on the
EU. It puts national governments firmly in the driving seat: the EU can only
act where Britain and other countries agree it should. We retain our veto in
core areas of national sovereignty, such as tax, foreign policy and defence.

There are no limits on the EU there are only some areas where Britain claims to have a veto, in each of those areas Foreign policy, defence, immigration, tax the EU has the clear intention to subvert and eventually to remove those vetoes. The EU calls on the principals of good faith and loyal cooperation to the EU Institutions by member states the ECJ has repeatedly underlined that these principals are a fundamental value of the EU system, and involve an obligation of positive assistance to the EU in achieving its goals. The Constitution also gives the EU the power to take more power that it does not have to adopt measures aimed at achieving a treaty goal.

3. More effective – Where we are better off working together with our European partners, the treaty will make the EU more effective, by streamlining decision-making, making the voting system simpler, fairer and more efficient and make it easier to drive forward EU governments’ agenda.

The key point is “EU government” this EU government is unelected and unaccountable to the British people, the EU Constitution will make it easer for that government to drive forward its agenda thus over riding the wishes of the British people and the Government we elect.

4. Better off – The treaty guarantees Britain’s access to the EU single market,
boosting businesses and jobs.

As already mentioned we do not need to be in the EU to trade with EU countries and we certainly do not need to make the EU our government to do so.

5. Fairer – The treaty entrenches social rights, and commits the EU to pursuing full employment, combating social exclusion and stamping out discrimination of all kinds.

We elect the government we want the EU will not add one thing to any rights we have.

6. Safer – The treaty will make our borders more secure, by making it easier
for Britain to act with our neighbours against terrorism, illegal immigration
and international crime where we want to, while doing our own thing where
we prefer to.

How on earth can it make our borders safer to pass the power to the EU which the Constitution does. These things can be achieved by cooperation amongst ourselves we do not need and EU Government to implement them.

7. More say on the world stage – Where we can agree a common position with other EU countries, the treaty will give Europe more clout with America, China and Russia in areas such as trade, global warming and human rights.
As already discussed this is nonsense “where we can agree” we can already have more clout we do not need the EU to have the power to tell us what our foreign policy is or should be that is what we elect our government for.

8. More flexible – The treaty makes it easier for countries that want to cooperate more closely in future to do so, without obliging others to join in if they don’t want to.

But it does not allow countries who do not want to cooperate more closely in the future not to do so, it does not return any power to the nation state.

9. More open, accountable and democratic – The treaty gives the British and European parliaments more say over EU decisions. It also creates a new citizens’ initiative right, which gives you the power to directly influence Europe’s agenda.

The Constitution gives no power to the British government to stop any law the EU makes becoming applicable in Britain the EU can simple ignore any protestations out government may make. The citizens cannot influence the EU agenda in fact the EU does not like any popular consultation with the people because it feels that this would put a break on EU integration even if we did get a petition with a million signatures across several states the EU can simply ignore it as it can ignore the subsidiarity clause.

10. A victory for Britain and reform – A former French prime minister is against the treaty because he says it is too “britannique”: it embodies the British vision of Europe as a loose grouping of nation states that is lightly regulated, outward-looking, business-friendly and open to reform.

Utter rubbish, the Constitution is more integrationist heavily regulated inward looking unfriendly to small business and certainly not open to reform, everybody has been complain about CAP about Fraud about Fishing for years and the EU has not reformed any one of those to any satisfaction. All the reforms this Constitution brings is the removal of the right for the British parliament to veto any further reforms to the Constitution.

Britain in Europe the “Fat Cats” Europhile pressure group, has what they laughingly describe as a “Fact Sheet” on the EU Constitution.
In the sheet (please excuse me for not using the word “Fact”)
They make several claims but offer no evidence I suppose they will assume the evidence is self-evident or that just because they say so it must be so.

Europe has been a resounding success for Britain, bringing:
• peace and prosperity across the continent;
• a single market of 450 million people that provides 60% of our trade, keeps
over 3 million British workers in jobs and brings lower prices and more
choice in the shops;
• European laws that protect workers, consumers and the environment;
• more influence in the world over vital issues such as world trade, global
warming, cancelling Third World debt and human rights.
Britain is £20 billion a year better off thanks to being part of the EU – that is
over £300 a year for every British person.

There are many who would disagree that the EU has been a resounding success for Britain, or the British people, we have to pay the massive cost of our membership though our taxes, and the EU then passes some of our money onto the big business run by these fat cats to help them become even bigger and more successful, the EU is continually bringing in new restrictions with disproportional affects on small business, many of them then go have to close, which also helps the Fat Cats and their international conglomerates.

Peace in the EU is an old chestnut, I do not know how many time we need to point out the obvious, that peace in the EU has not been brought about by anything the EU has done. Where were the peace-keeping qualities of “Europe” when the Berlin blockade was defied, when Eastern Europe rose in revolt, when the Berlin wall went up, it was NATO, led by the Americans that imposed some kind of a solution in Yugoslavia. Peace was kept only in a small part of Europe, which happened to be under NATO protection and the nuclear umbrella. This part of Europe also had American troops stationed in it and was amply provided with American military hardware Whilst the union was busy discussing the finer points of the CAP other were making sure that there was peace in Europe.

Prosperity: Britain has always been a trading nation, the EU is in fact making that trade harder to achieve, with its multitude of ever increasing regulations increasing the costs of doing business. A country does not need to be a member of the EU to export to the EU. The USA, not an EU member, does not impose one iota of EU regulation on its domestic economy, yet it exports more to the EU than the UK does.

60% of our trade and 300 million Jobs:
60% of our exports of goods goes to the EU. Only some 40% of our total exports goes to the EU (goods plus services plus investment income). 10% of our Gross Domestic Product, are involved in trade with the EU (declining and in deficit). Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the rest of the world (growing and in surplus.) The remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic economy. We do not trade with the EU we trade with the individual countries of the EU, and do more trade with the USA than we do with France and Germany combined. It is silly to pretend that our 3 million or so jobs which support our trade with the Single Market would be lost if we left the EU. The trade would continue, and so would the jobs, this statistic was from a report which has been jumped on by the Europhiles, but they fail to point out that the author of the report is on record denying this figure or anything like it.
European laws that protect workers, consumers and the environment:
Were are laws so lacking that we need an unelected unaccountable commision to impose the laws and their associated costs on us. Many of these laws were already in place the only reason the EU wishes to claim them is the EU laws are for one reason and that is to increase the power of the EU over the nation states, at the same time removing our rights to elect the people who make our laws and deny the people of this country any say in those laws.

More influence in the world over vital issues: We only have more influence if Britain is in agreement with the general EU view, if we feel that the common agreement amongst 25 states reflects our own wishes, then speaking as one voice could have more influence, however if we are not in agreement then in fact we have less power on the world stage because we will no longer have our own separate voice.

Britain is £20 billion a year better off thanks to being part of the EU: As the government has refused to do a cost benefit analysis with regard to the benefits of membership this figure is pure hokum. Those who have look at the likely costs against the benefits are in agreement that Britian at worst would not loose anything by leaving the Union some suggest that we would in fact be £20 billion per year better off.