eurealist.co.uk

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