eurealist.co.uk

Conservatives have launched a “Green Paper” outlining ideas for the future of the UK fishing industry, based on lessons learned from successful policies pursued by countries like Canada, the United States, Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands.

Stressing that any national solution must be accompanied by a local management system, which commands the confidence and trust of the nation and its fishermen, he added: “Only local people understand the context of their local marine environment and are best placed to guarantee sustainable local fish stocks.”

I will look forward to Dr North’s Eureferendum, comments on this policy as he has a deep understanding of matters fishing, the only fly in the ointment is that for Britain to take back its waters would be against the EU treaties, which make it clear that it is the EU which is in charge. For this policy to work that must be settled first, otherwise is a waste of time even thinking about what Britian would do if it had the power to do so, and so far Mr Howard has not convinced in his argument that he would negotiate a return.

EU Referendum

After my comment this morning the Irish political élites (who)have embraced the EU “project”, they sure are having difficulty coming to terms with what it means. Even now, they still seem to be under the impression the EU directives are optional.

If government, any government, “believes it can do as it wishes without the constraint of a constitution which is enforceable then no-one and nothing is safe.”

“The law should be obeyed. Even by the powerful. Even by the Trade Unions. We sit here to carry out the law. To see that the law is obeyed. And that we will do. A subject cannot disregard the law with impunity. To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over three hundred years ago ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’”. Denning

“A government above the law is a menace to be defeated” Lord Scarman
Parliament cannot do as it wishes. There are a great many things parliament cannot do. It cannot sit for more than five years, it cannot permit anyone not elected to speak in its chamber, nor anyone who has not sworn an oath of allegiance, it cannot dissolve itself and it cannot legitimately depose The Queen.
No parliament can bind its successors. This principle is itself a maxim of common law, and has been often restated:
“Acts derogatory to the power of subsequent parliaments bind not” Blackstone and Halsbury
Neither can parliament legislate in contravention of the treaties which established the constitution and sovereignty of this nation - a point central to our case. Furthermore, parliament has a duty of care to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of the people who elected it.
Nor can parliament complete the passage of a bill without the royal assent.
“sovereign legislation depends for its authority on (what Salmond calls) an ‘ultimate legal principle’, ie: a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be given. If no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey (the UK) parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. It is above and beyond the reach of statute…because it is itself the source of the authority of statute.”
In other words, the relationship between parliament, sovereign legislation and the courts of law in the United Kingdom is unalterable.
An attempt was made to bring these and other matters to court in 1971 by Raymond Blackburn who challenged the government’s right to join the common market on the grounds that it could only do so by surrendering sovereignty. A year later, Ross McWhirter invoked the Bill of Rights to show that the government did not have authority to give away the right and liberties of the people. Tragically, he was assassinated before the matter was decided. His brother Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Summonses were issued against the then Foreign Secretary for treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the case and then drop it as “not in the public interest”. Yet the Bill of Rights prohibits “suspending laws or the operation of laws”. His action was also contrary to natural justice because the Attorney General was sitting in judgement in his own cause.

To accept that the only remedy lies with the body that perpetuates the abuse is to admit that there is no remedy. That must be wrong, both morally and constitutionally.
Summing up in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning quoted the great 18th century Attorney, Sir Thomas Fuller:
“Be you never so high, the law is above you.”
Lord Denning added:
“When the Attorney General comes…and tells us that he has a prerogative by which he alone can say whether the criminal law can be enforced in these courts or not - then I say he has no such prerogative. He has no prerogative to suspend or dispense with the laws of England. If he does not give his consent, then any citizen of the land - any one of the public who is adversely affected - can come to this court and ask that the law be enforced.”
“The house as a whole may therefore be reassured that there is no question of this bill (The European Communities Bill 1972) making a thousand years of British law subservient to the Code Napoleon”.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Hansard, 15 Feb 1972. Pg.270.

“Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house, but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people”.
Mr Alfred Morris MP. Hansard, 17 Feb 1972 Pg. 727-8.

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

“There is no reason to think that the impact of community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law in the United Kingdom”.
The Lord High Chancellor, Command Paper 3301, 1967, on the constitutional implications of the UK joining the European Community.

“…no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”
White Paper on joining the Common Market, issued by the Heath government in July 1971.

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

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

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

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

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

Every five years we might be said to ‘lease’ its care to ‘tenants’ (parliament) who have an obligation to look after our property and act in our best interests as the ultimate owners. Those same ‘tenants’ do not own the title to our deeds, nor any right of ownership over the property itself. They merely own the right of abode, and duty of care, for a maximum of five years. They are caretakers, if you like. They have no right to sign away those title deeds. They did not own them in the first place.
“In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and of enforcing laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and whenever these powers are united together, there can be no public liberty…. But where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands, the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence and therewith of the liberty of the subject. With us therefore, in England, this supreme power is divided into two branches; the legislative, to wit, the Parliament, consisting of the King, the Lords and the Commons; and the other, the executive consisting of the King alone”.
Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England.

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

Dear Lord Dobs,

With reference to your Private Members Bill to make provision about succession to the Crown and about Royal Marriages.

I write to convey my great concern and objection to any alteration or repeal of any part of our Common Law Constitution. You site the Act of Settlement, which is of course what it says it is, an important ‘act of settlement’ and one which makes quite clear is “forever”. Any alteration or repeal would also affect fifteen Commonwealth Countries.

I am aware that the present Pope wanted (the Catholic) religion included in the European Constitution and note that he is also Head of the Catholic Church and Head of State. Whereas our Constitution applies to this country, the Papacy as I understand it, considers itself not only a political institution, it would claim universal authority. It does not however have jurisdiction here in this Realm of the United Kingdom. It should remain ever thus. (See also Hansard 19th December 2001 Column 322 re religious discrimination)

I am aware of Lord Gray’s case on the abolition of the Hereditary Peers that he thought ultra vires, and I am aware of the out-come of that case. (There were no life Peers in 1706/7). The Act of Union is a Treaty between two sovereign states, the Country of England (and Wales) and the Country of Scotland. It is also a Treaty that was ratified. Alteration or repeal of such an ancient document would put that Treaty in jeopardy, and therefore the United Kingdom as a whole in jeopardy. The Treaty upon the Act of Union is also very clear about religion and succession and Article 11 of the Treaty of Union embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement. The repeal of that Treaty would bring about two separate Countries once more.

The Bill of Rights is about the security of this nation and the security and rights of the people. Although ‘today’s’ Politicians appear to believe that they can do exactly what they like, (they appear to rely on their interpretation of Dicey, yet neither he nor Lord Denning could have envisaged that any British Government would have gone so far as to contemplate accepting an EU constitution that would take preference above our own). What our Parliamentarians seem to forget is that most of our Common Law Constitution is a contract/compact made between the Crown and the people of this Country and to which Parliament has agreed. (See Denning in his quote from Sir Thomas Fuller) It is the people’s Bill of Rights and is part of the settlement of what became known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 into which the whole of the Declaration of Rights was incorporated into the Bill of Rights. (my link)

“For the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the TRUE, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesty’s and their successors according to the same in all times to come”.

None of it could be clearer. The Government and the people are bound by Oath (and so by law) to the Crown. It is part of the Settlement of one of the most successful revolutions in history, at least up until recent years. For example, under the present and recent situation, if a subject of Her Majesty is arrested and charged by a foreign national, recruited into the British Police Service quite deliberately, then the people might become alerted to the destruction of their rights. The Act of Settlement and Magna Carta are quite clear that British nationals only should be recruited and the Bill of Rights lays down the Oaths of Allegiance. These were all built into our Common Law Constitution even all those long years ago for the SECURITY of this country and the people and, as part of our Constitution it applies today. (I am aware of the ‘nationality’ clause in the EU Constitution, but SECURITY of our country and our own Constitution must take precedence, and especially before ‘deeper and more meaningful’ integration into the European Union.

The incorporation into our legislation of the Convention on Human Rights went ahead in the full knowledge that it was incompatible with our Constitution. A Constitution is like the foundations of a house; our Constitution is the very foundation of this Country authority. Chip away at the foundations of a house, and it falls down. Chip away at our Constitution and eventually the whole Country may fall. Likewise by incorporating the European Communities Act into our Legislation again knowing that it was incompatible with our Constitution was bound to bring with it a division of the people within this Country. A division, which commenced in 1972, and has become a wide gulf at this present time. It is time for the Convention on Human Rights to be repealed along with the European Communities Act.

It cannot possibly have escaped notice that the people of this Country have become more protective of their country recently, perhaps more patriotic than they have been for some considerable time. So many died fighting in two world wars so that we should not be governed forever by other than our own. I realise more than ever that our own constitution has to be protected and must not be allowed to be slowly ‘chipped away’. I am fearful, very fearful of what may happen in the future, especially when the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constituion for the Union” is being mooted as “just another treaty”. It is most definitely NOT. I pray that it does not bring forth another glorious revolution if any attempt is made to incorporate it as a Constitution for this country. Or one Constitution for the whole of the European Union with us still ‘in’ the Union.

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is bound by the Oaths she made at Her Coronation as we too are so bound by our oaths of allegiance. I respectfully ask you to withdraw your Bill. I remain a loyal and true subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

Copy to the Lord Chancellor.

As this is about our Constitution, it is an open letter.

From Euobserver (side bar)
Ireland not to take part in EU battlegroups

“Ireland is not to take part in the European Union’s battlegroups due to constitutional difficulties.

The Irish Times reports that Irish defence minister Willie O’Dea ruled out participation for the foreseeable future because of major legal and constitutional difficulties.

Ireland is a neutral country and needs a UN mandate before deploying its troops.

It is foreseen that the EU battlegroups should be deployable within 10-15 days but getting a UN Security Council Resolution passed usually takes longer.

“The Security Council doesn’t pass resolutions in five to 10 days,” said Mr O’Dea adding that a resolution is “a necessary mechanism to trigger [Ireland's] participation”.

Other aspects of the battlegroup proposal - which envisions teams of up to 1,500 troops being rapidly deployed to trouble spots - are also causing problems for Ireland.

As a small country it does not have the means to provide a battlegroup on its own but was hoping to participate with other neutral countries, Finland and Sweden.

However, it appears that under a defence act of 1954, Irish troops cannot be sent abroad for training, while having foreign troops in the country may breach the Irish Constitution.

This says that there may be only one army in the state.

These revelations are set to be an embarrassment for the Irish government at the EU level as it had been part of the original decision to set up battlegroups.

The EU’s battlegroups are supposed to be ready for action by 2007.”

At what stage I wonder will the member states governments accept, and then admit that the whole process of the EU is about making that organisation the government, that being the case Ireland need not be overly concerned because there an answer to their problems.

Last night I was reading a “Report for Briefing Seminar Istanbul 2-3 July 2004- Constitutional Legal Aspects of the Integration process to the EU” by Dr Alfred E. Kellermann who concludes thus.

“Since the relationship between Community Law and National law will be regulated in the European Constitution will it then be nevertheless be necessary to regulate that relationship in the National constitutions?

Adaptation of national constitutions is necessary before and after accession. It is a moving target, which should continuously be monitored. Perhaps the time will then come for a complete revision of the national constitutions, in which the constitutional legislators will finally recognise and describe the true importance of the European integration progress in the “living constitutions” of the member states. In this respect, the situation in the EU Member States may, after all, not be so different from that of the candidate countries, which are also faced with the question whether their constitutions, despite their recent origin, may need to be changed so as to facilitate adaptation to the European Union legal order.”

From Mr George Curtis Letter to the Times

Sir, The Conservative policies advanced by Bill Cash (Comment, January 5) seem to me irrational — the political and intellectual equivalent of being half-pregnant. The Conservatives need to compare the fundamentals of the UK against those of the EU.

Yours faithfully,
GEORGE CURTIS

Mr Curtis makes some interesting points, one thing occurs to me that Mr Curtis statement “The rule of law means that the Government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand” is in fact recently being undermined by governments new style of law making which has the effect of removing our certainty that we are in fact on the right side of the law, and allows the government to interpret their laws in a manner which is not constant throughout the land this is contrary to the British way when we should have the right to know that we are not breaking the law. How are we, for instance, to know that we have obeyed the law if we tackle a burglar in the middle of the night?

EU Referendumtml
posting on the Booker column in the Telegraph on Sunday questions why it is that the BBC does not report the American efforts in the Indian Ocean, watching the BBC on could be forgiven for thinking that the Americans were not even helping when in fact theirs is the biggest force operating in the area. When the BBC has cover this, they have inferred that George Bush only sent in the US Navy as a propaganda exercise, this is really disgusting, but shows that the BBC cannot be trusted to report truthfully if it involves America the biggest evil the world has known.

Booker takes on the BBC over its coverage of the tsunami disaster. Headed “‘Don’t mention the navy’ is the BBC’s line”, his story rehearsed the litany of complaint familiar to our readers about the BBC’s biased coverage of the relief effort, studiously ignoring what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia’s tsunami disaster – the effort put in by the US Navy.

Yet, on the day that the USS Bonhomme Richard started work in earnest, the BBC found time to do a long “puff” on HMS Chatham, showing endless footage of matelots clearing rubble. Nice to see our lads in action, but the US forces deserve at least a mention. Not least, helicopters from the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier group had their biggest aid delivery day, bringing 125,000 pounds of food, water and other supplies to Aceh aboard 15 helicopters.

A comment by Alex Dakers puts a lot of this Eucentric BBC reporting into perspective:

Perhaps the answer can be found in The EU’s de Clercq Report 1993 devised initiatives to ensure that:

“…European identity must be ‘ingrained in people’s minds’ as a ‘good product’ using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly ‘women and youth’, should become ‘priority target groups’. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union…so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause.”

Links to other posts that cover the EU agenda to ingrain EU identity in people’s minds:
Here and Here

Fantastic news the EU has found a cure for TB as proudly announced on their web site

European scientists find novel cure for resurgent TB
Researchers in Belgium have uncovered a novel treatment that promises to be an effective cure for tuberculosis (TB).

This has driven up the TB death toll to 2 million people worldwide every year, prompting the World Health Organisation (WHO) to declare it a global health crisis. In response to this growing challenge, a team of scientists in Belgium has developed a novel cure for TB which has proved successful on mice and is doing well in preliminary human trials.

North Sea Diaries have been doing a little digging and suggests although not certainly, that perhaps the Commision is claiming this as an EU intuitive is not quite the real story. Perhaps its a Euromyth!

Very good news. And arriving on the Commission’s website, filled with trumpeting about the latest EU-funded démarches, initiatives and programmes, the reader would naturally think the EU is behind it all. “Hello”, one’s supposed to think, “another medical success story for the good old EU”. That impression would be reinforced by the closing paragraph of the press release:

Looking at the sources of funding for the organisations that were involved, and the accounts for the charitable organisations, and J&J’s press releases, and the EU’s sixth framework programme itself, there is no evidence that it can. This is not a definitive no, but it looks very much like it.

Is the referendum a assured win for the No side, George Trefgarne writing in the Telegraph thinks not, Basing his scenario on the implosion of the Conservative party after the next election defeat Trefgarne suggests a view that I have heard before that Gordon Brown will switch horses after the election and come out fighting for the government, this is if you accept the theory that he is anti-EU in the first place which is not in any way certain. Those of us who do not want this Constitution would be well advised not to place our hopes in the Conservatives being in any position to oppose after the election they seem to be bleeding votes by they day. That is always supposing that they would in any case, because despite the Labour Party promulgating the idea that they are anti, if you look closely are their policies, that argument does not stand up.

Trefgarne hypothesis goes like this….

When it comes to the European Constitution campaign, a Yes victory narrative goes something like this.
February 2005: Spain votes yes to ratifying the constitution (the polls are currently 57 per cent to eight per cent in favour), to be followed by Holland, Portugal and France.
May: Labour wins another big election victory. Tony Blair, with Gordon Brown at his side, announces a historic mission to ratify the constitution.

As the polls start to switch, other arguments are deployed by the pro-constitution lobby, of which the most potent is that the real choice is between ratifying the constitution, with all its disadvantages, or being reduced to a colonial outpost of George W Bush’s America. Scare stories are spread that withdrawing would also mean the end to cheap flights to France and Spain. Then, in March 2006, a referendum results in a Yes vote, by 52 per cent to 48 per cent - and Teflon Tony will have done it again.

Further to the Post Australia attempts to save British Constitution

12th January 2005

Dear Lord Dubs,

It has come to our attention that on 8th December last, a Bill was ordered to be printed in your name to make provision about succession to the Crown and about Royal marriages. It is not clear from Hansard whether you combined moving first reading of this Bill with the printing, although this would have been in accordance with the procedure described in Erskine May 22nd edition (1997) at pp.465-6.

I am writing formally to advise you that our learned counsel and I are of the opinion that it is not within the power of Parliament to amend the Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement and Union between Scotland and England legislation 1706-7 as proposed in your Bill. In our view significant change to the fundamental principles of our constitution as re-established in the Bill of Rights (1689) and related legislation is not within the power of Parliament by passing a Bill such as yours. Further we do not believe discussion of this Bill in Parliament can validate its enactment for the simple reason that Parliament itself is subject to and limited by the Rule of Law. Therefore contrary to general misunderstanding of Dicey, Parliament does not possess unlimited power or sovereignty enabling it to make the constitutional changes proposed.

If this Bill proceeds we shall not hesitate to seek the assistance of the Courts in order to establish that any enactment of this Bill or any Bill that proposes to amend our Constitution as you suggest would be without legal effect and therefore void. We intend no discourtesy to your Lordship nor any infringement of the respected privileges of the House, but wish merely to notify you of our disquiet and determination. We therefore respectfully request you to reconsider this Bill and seek its withdrawal under the well-established procedure set out in Erskine May 22nd edition p.467.

Yours sincerely,
JOHN GOURIET

Defenders of the Realm

BILL OF RIGHTS 1688
An Act Declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject
and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne

All which Their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by
authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for ever

And bee it further declared and enacted by the Authoritie aforesaid That from and after this present Session of
Parlyament noe Dispensation by Non obstante of or to any Statue or any part thereof shall be allowed but that
the same shall be held void and of noe effect