eurealist.co.uk

Michael Ancram said: “The referendum question seems straightforward.

“But the fact that the Government has slipped approval of this dangerous Constitution, which the great majority of British people oppose, in with the bill to let them have their say, is an underhand trick.

They are two separate issues. There should be two separate bills. It is typical that Mr Blair wants to confuse the two.

This seems to mean that MP`s get to vote for the constitution and our right to have a referendum on the Constitution, on the same vote.

Voting for the Constitution gives us a referendum but allows Blair to say to the country the House of Commons has voted for this by a large margin, thus adding power to the yes side, voting against, no referendum, of course if no then we do not need a referendum so they could argue that the two should be linked. But Blair is denying those MP`s who want a referendum but are against the Constitution a true vote.

Tony Liar Blair has rejected claims that Labour has given up the UK’s powers to set its own asylum laws, saying that Ministers had not given up the UK’s right to set its own laws and control its own borders.

Now I wonder how he can square that with the intervention from the EU Commision on Tuesday that the UK had done exactly that. Saying If a future British government were to enact laws that contravened EU regulations, the commission would begin “infringement proceedings”. Those would be followed, if resistance continued, by legal action in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

So there you have it, Labour has not given up UK’s powers to set its own asylum laws, just as long as they do not contravened the superior laws of the EU.

More More

A letter from Dennis Cooper
Dear Mr Hannan

Many congratulations on your excellent article in the Daily Telegraph today:

“The EU’s four-stage strategy to reduce Britons to servitude”

However with respect I must take issue with this one statement:

“In reality, though, the Treaty of Rome created a new legal order, directly applicable within the jurisdictions of the member nations.”
Some people, and especially the judges at the European Court of Justice, do advance the claim that there is now “a new legal order” which is superior to the national law of the Member States. Indeed, some of our own judges are now teetering on the edge of agreeing with that proposition. I think it was Judge Morgan who referred to something like “a bold new source of law”, but he was later over-ruled by Lord Justice Laws.

And we have Anthony Aust in a letter to the Times today, going even further and claiming that another new legal order - “general international law” - would prevent a duly elected Conservative government carrying out its manifesto commitment to reform our asylum system.

Why should we give aid and comfort to such people, by agreeing with their politically motivated legal theories?

The British people will quietly obey whatever they are told is the law - now you’ve told Telegraph readers what the ECJ would like them to believe, in essence that we have already surrendered our national sovereignty and that EU laws are intrinsically superior to our own laws.

I know that you also said:

“The judge would act in this way, not simply because judges enjoy overturning deportation orders (although they do), but because he would be obliged, under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 European Communities Act, to give precedent to EU rules over our own parliamentary statutes. That is why, for example, the Metric Martyrs lost their case. Although a 1985 Act of Parliament explicitly allowed traders to use either metric or imperial units, an EU directive said otherwise, and our appeal court was obliged to give precedence to the latter.”

which “in reality” is an accurate description of the existing legal position. But that will just leave people confused, given your earlier statement.

Surely we should NEVER admit the claim that the Treaty of Rome has already created a new legal order, which would implicitly be superior to our own national law - in fact we should contradict that notion at every opportunity, and emphasise the huge significance of Article I-6 of the proposed EU Constitution:

“The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.”

which, if accepted, could be cited as our explicit recognition of the EU Constitution as the supreme source of legal authority in our country.

Best Regards

Denis Cooper

When Just before Christmas the law lords drove a coach and horses through the governments Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001I I said….

The point to remember is that our whole system is under threat with the government’s stealth introduction of Corpus Juris. We should also remember that the law lords did not say this particular infringement on the rights of the accused, is itself against the ECHR, only that it was unfair because it only applied to foreigners and not British Citizens. So Ian MacDonald QC and 8 out of 9 Law lords do not seem to be interested in the basic destruction of British rights, they just want them to be evenly distributed to all of us.

It now seems that the government have answered the problem by offering to make the rule fair so that they will now apply to British Nationals as well as foreigners.

In response to a law lords ruling that the detention without trial of 12 foreign nationals was disproportionate and discriminatory, Mr Clarke said the system of control orders intended to replace those powers could now apply to both British citizens and foreign nationals.
Guardian

So we now have a situation where 1000 years of protection against a tyrannical overlord has been undermined by an international treaty which is forcing the Government we elect to remove the basic rights we British people have, not to be arrested and held without the due process of law.

At the same time Mr Clarke is going to allow foreigners who he obviously believes are a danger to this country free under some restrictions, this of course will prevent a further challenge in the courts, so the terrorist suspects have gained their freedom and we the British people have lost ours.

I wonder now if the agitators who took the government to court for 9 terrorist suspects, will be the good upstanding champions for rights and justice they must be, and take the government to court to challenge their right to hold British people without trial. Somehow I have a feeling that is not going to happen.

One further point which has always made me wonder, how is it that a terrorist suspect who arrives as a supposed refugee, fleeing for their lives can escape their own country cross a continent of other safe havens and fetch up in Britain, where once arrested and held, they can then afford the vast amounts of money it cost to bring such an action in the first place, and then to take it all the way to the house of lords.