eurealist.co.uk

Neil Herron: EU Constitution and the Metric Martyrs Judgment:

“To make sure that everyone understands what is being talked about, an explanatory note was added to the final version of the constitution duringthe closing stages of the negotiations.
It states: ‘The conference notes that the provisions of Article I-6 reflect existing Court of Justice case law.’
So there you have it: the European Courts think that EU law is superior to national constitutional law, a position explicitly rejected by the High Court in London; the reference to ‘existing Court of Justice case law’ therefore means that the British Government is asserting its support for the ECJ’s position and repudiating that of the British courts.

This is an astonishing, perhaps unprecedented, situation.

Either the Government is incompetent in claiming that the constitution is no big deal (and, since incompetence is becoming the hallmark of the Blair government, this explanation cannot be ruled out of hand); or it is deliberately hiding the revolutionary significance of the EU declaration in a desperate attempt to downplay the dramatic implications of theconstitution. Apart from anything else, the British government has set itself on a collision course with the courts, of a kind which will make the battles over the enforcement of criminal justice in recent years look like a Sunday tea-party at a rural vicarage.

To repeat: the British Government, by signing the constitution, wishes to endorse ‘ECJ case law’, which asserts that EU law is supreme even over British constitutional law and can determine the nature of the relationship between the UK and EU, explicitly going against the position of the British courts as stated by Lord Justice Laws in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ case.

The ECJ would regard the ratification of the constitution by Parliament as a deliberate renunciation of Lord Justice Laws’ judgment - and hence a British desire to renounce his ruling; this would create an enormous constitutional crisis over the central question of who has ultimate legal authority in theUK - and signal a massive power struggle.Given Lord Justice Laws’ view that the British Parliament does not have theright to abandon its own sovereignty, would the British courts refuse togive effect to the Constitution?

Or would they regard a “Yes” vote in the referendum as explicit public support for terminating the common law principle of parliamentary sovereignty - the foundation of the British constitution for centuries - and hence accept what would in effect be a revolution, in the strictest meaning of that word?”

Full Post:

By TREVOR KAVANAGH
Political Editor

TONY Blair was blasted by a former top aide last night for misleading voters over plans for an EU superstate.
Roger Liddle urged the PM to admit he is handing “more and more power” to Brussels.
And he warned that Mr Blair risks defeat on the EU Constitution unless he owns up to an inevitable loss of sovereignty.

Mr Liddle, a key figure in Labour’s pro-EU camp who now makes £127,000 a year working for EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson, said: “We have to be much more honest with people that Europe has always been a political project.”

He said economic arguments in favour of the EU were now less relevant — but warned Britain would end up with “a kind of associate status” if it rejected the constitution.

Blair told to make EU poll win top priority

Christopher Adams Financial Times 8 Mar 2005

Tony Blair should make winning the referendum on the European Union’s constitutional treaty an immediate priority if he triumphs in the general election, according to one of his former advisers.

Roger Liddle, who advised the prime minister on European issues from 1997 to 2004, said pro-Europeans should be “more honest” and acknowledge that the EU was a political project.

People could see Brussels was gaining “more and more powers” and it was time to make the political arguments for ratifying the treaty more forcefully.

Mr Liddle told the BBC’s Today programme the last seven years had shown there was no longer a compelling economic reason for Britain to be at the heart of Europe.

He described his comments as a “wake-up call” for the government. “From day one after the general election, this has got to be a top priority for a re-elected Labour government. And it’s got to present a positive case,” he said.

Mr Liddle is one of several senior pro-Europeans, among them ministers and figures close to Britain in Europe, the group that is likely to co-ordinate the Yes campaign, who believe Mr Blair will have to act quickly if he is to win the referendum, expected to be held next year. But he went further yesterday, saying that the case for the EU needed to be refashioned too.

“In the past, pro-Europeans have peddled the argument that there was no alternative . . . in the past seven years we have shown there is an alternative, we have run our economy pretty well. We have got to be much more honest and open with people that Europe has always been a political project. I think politically we now want to move on to Europe being a much more credible and effective force for good in the world.”

His comments were seized on by the Vote No campaign, which is against ratifying the constitution. It said: “Roger Liddle is being more honest than the government. Everyone knows that joining the EU constitution would mean giving up even more power to officials who aren’t elected and can’t be voted out.”

However, other pro-European figures in the Yes camp agreed a more positive case for ratification needed to be made and suggested Mr Blair use a reshuffle after the election to put Gordon Brown in charge of running the referendum campaign.
Some felt the chancellor’s campaigning experience, his emphasis on reforming the EU and perceived scepticism of the benefits of euro membership would convince more voters to back the treaty if he came out strongly in support of it.

But Keith Vaz, former Europe minister, said the economic arguments should be stressed if the government were to win the referendum.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said Mr Liddle was entitled to his view: “It is the PM’s prerogative to listen to advice and come to his own views.”

Power-hungry Brussels by Mandelson’s aide

Benedict Brogan Daily Mail 8 Mar 2005

LABOUR divisions over Europe flared up last night after Peter Mandelson was accused of undermining Tony Blair’s re- election campaign.

MPs blamed the European Commissioner for an extraordinary intervention by one of Labour’s most influential figures on European policy.

His chief of staff, Roger Liddle, caused uproar at Westminster by admitting that the Government is surrendering ‘more and more powers’ to Brussels.

As Tony Blair’s former chief adviser on the European Union, Mr Liddle is uniquely placed to shed light on Downing Street’s agenda on Europe.
His revelation, in a BBC interview, threatened to bring chaos to Labour’s election campaign. The Prime Minister is desperate to put off talk about Europe until after polling day for fear of antagonising Eurosceptic voters.
But Mr Liddle urged him to be ‘much more honest’ about the European ‘political project’.

He predicted ’serious consequences’ for Labour unless it started campaigning hard for a ‘yes’ on the EU constitution.
His candour shattered a Labour deal to keep quiet about Europe before polling day for fear of reviving bitter internal divisions.
MPs branded Mr Liddle’s remarks a political gaffe and claimed his boss Mr Mandelson was orchestrating trouble from Brussels.
Ian Davidson, chairman of Labour Against a Superstate, the group leading backbench resistance to the constitution, said: ‘The whole European project has always been a political one and this confirms our view that it’s all about building a country called Europe. It would appear Roger Liddle has gone straight out of Number Ten to Brussels and has gone native immediately.

‘His intervention at this time demonstrates that the “yes” camp is being led from Brussels by Peter Mandelson, who appears to be ignoring our need to win a third term.’

Mr Liddle traded in his job as a top Downing Street adviser last year for a post in Brussels, alongside his patron Mr Mandelson.

He used a Today programme interview yesterday to send what he said was a ‘wake up call’ to the Government.

Mr Liddle predicted that the other 24 EU members will ratify the constitution, leaving only Britain to vote ‘no’ in the referendum next year. He called on Mr Blair to be open about the drive to give Europe a political identity.

‘In the past, pro-Europeans have talked about Europe as though it is some sort of economic free trade area that doesn’t threaten our sovereignty,’ he said.

‘I think we have got to be much more honest and open with people, that Europe always has been a political project.’

Downing Street moved swiftly to distance Mr Blair from his former adviser. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘Roger Liddle no longer works in Downing Street.’
Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram said: ‘It’s refreshing to hear someone at the heart of New Labour admit Brussels is gaining more and more powers over our lives.’

The Saga of Treason Act 1795

By Anne Palmer, 8.3.2005.

As many of your are aware, I trail certain debates in our Parliament and also, from time to time, the European Parliament, and so it was on 17th November 2004 in a reply to Lord Tebbits question, Whether, and if so by what statutory provision, treason remains a criminal offence? [HL, 4921] to which the Baroness of Scotland replied, Treason remains a criminal offence under the treason Acts of 1351, 1702, 1795 and 1842, and the Treason Felony Act 1848.

Glaring out at me, and for very uncomfortable personal reasons was the 1795 Treason Act which I now know was repealed during the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, having heard this from the Judge sitting on a case of Misprision of Treason in the Walsall Court, September 2004.

I immediately wrote a letter to Lady Scotland with a copy to Lord Tebbit, and as always with a letter that concerns our Constitution, made absolutely clear it was an open letter. (In other words, it is not just MY Constitution)

The reply came from the Home Office, which as well as the points quoted by Lady Scotland during the debate, was this particular one, The 1795 Act outlawed plots to kill, maim, imprison etc the Sovereign, his heirs and successors. In modern practice, such acts would be covered by conspiracy law which was placed on a statutory footing by the Criminal Law Act 1977. The maximum sentence for conspiracy is the same as the offence the defendant conspired to commit. For example, a person convicted of conspiracy to murder of conspiracy to commit another serious offence for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, could be sentences to life imprisonment for the conspiracy too.

In September 2004, Derek Bennett, (UKIP) attended the Magistrate’s Court in Walsall in an attempt to bring charges of Misprision of Treason against certain members of Government who intend to incorporate the proposed EU Constitution into our system. The use of the constitutional 1795 Treason Act thwarted his attempt because unbeknown to many (even Baroness Scotland in the House of Lords), it was repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.

The 1795 Treason Act was last used by Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter in the Misprison of Treason case at Hexham (Northumberland) Magistrates Court 9th September 1993. It was obviously the right Treason Act to use for the number of charges placed before the Court at that time, and would remain so now if still active. It therefore was not repealed in 1998 simply because ‘it had not been used for many years. It had been. It was also used by many people who did not know of its repeal, trying to prevent the Nice Treaty from being ratified, in the year 2000 and 2001 and again by Derek in 2004 against the EU Constitution.

My reply from the Home Office also stated, œdespite an extensive search of our records, we have not been able to ascertain why the 1795 Act was itself repealed at that time (All the officials who worked in this Unit during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act have since moved on so we have not had the benefit of their knowledge). I find it difficult to comprehend that such an important department can muddle along in such a fashion!

Lord Tebbit raised a similar question in the House of Lords, on 7th March 2005 and there was still no satisfactory answer and no one seems to be fully aware of why the whole Act was repealed in what was mainly a Bill to do with youth, in fact the debates go from debating the “effect of childs silence at trial to abolishing the death penalty for treason and piracy. (31st March 1998) The switch makes no sense.

Lord Stoddart questioned whether, when becoming an EU Commissioner the making of an Oath to the European Union having previously made an oath of allegiance to the Queen, was treasonable, to which the Baroness of Scotland replied, My Lords, I hesitate as always to give any disappointment to the noble Lord, but I have to tell him that the EU constitution is, unfortunately, not a treasonable document. Quite right of course, for on its own it is not a treasonable document, however, incorporate it into our system, it would automatically override our own Constitution, (and states so in the Constitutional document) which, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the constitution is an act of treason. Whereas it was established in 1932 that No Parliament may bind its successors etc, etc.

There are those that believe our entry into the European Community in 1972 was unlawful, even though it was a “Treaty”. The Treaty however, gave Community law supremacy over our law. There is the added problem that the people were also deliberately misled during the 1975 referendum campaign in an effort to persuade the people to vote to “remain in the European Community”. Lord Denning ruled (Macarthy’s Ltd V Smith) that “ultimate sovereignty still rests with Parliament: Community Law prevails only because Parliament wants it to prevail. Etc”. Government’s belief that Parliament is still sovereign and can come out of the now European Union by simply repealing the European Communities Act will end if ever the EU Constitution, signed by the Rt Hon Anthony Blair, is ratified.

Although there is an exit clause in the EU Constitution, it would require the agreement of the remaining 24 Countries to allow us to withdraw. Do not hold you breath for that to happen. They need us, far more than we need them for that to happen.

No Government has the right to sign our Country away to be governed forever, (or for an unlimited period) by anyone other than our own Government that we the people elect and whose sworn oath of allegiance by all British subjects, is to the Crown and this Country at all times.

As there appears to be no apparent reason why the recently used 1795 Treason Act has been repealed, I now suggest that the Treason Act 1795 be re-instated, for there may well come a time when it is needed in the future. Anne Palmer.

Arguments that the British pint is safe from EU metric rules look like they are going to be on soft ground if this one fly’s. This to me is really a symptom of the way the EU works, Pints do not matter a dam but the Europhiles feel that to insist on selling beer in metric would cause uproar in the population that will work against the concept of integration and add to Eusceptic feelings. So the British have an opt out on this particular unit of measurement for the time being, but when our government is prepared to prosecute greengrocers for selling in imperial the writing is on the wall for all to see.

Telegraph | News | Beer industry offers women a third way:

“By David Derbyshire, Consumer Affairs Editor
(Filed: 08/03/2005)

A £1 million marketing campaign aims to replace traditional pints and halves with ‘female friendly’ thirds in an attempt to shatter the macho image of beer.

The British Beer and Pub Association wants the smaller measures, served in large wine-style glasses, to lure female drinkers away from wine, alcopops and other fruit-based drinks.

Trials of more ‘feminine’ glasses are part of the association’s ‘Beautiful Beer’ campaign to redefine the boorish image of the drink.

The beer industry is concerned at the growth of wine, which has overtaken beer as Britain’s favourite tipple. Beer remains a predominantly male drink. About 36 per cent of women in pubs drink wine but only 14 per cent drink lager.”

A list of EU speakers from England Expects

If any of you are at a public meeting and any of the following are there, or if you are reading a newspaper and you notice their byline, well you know who they are and you know who sent them. Treat their message with the caution that you would treat a pissed of puff adder. As the Commission says itself,
“Team Europe is the European Commission’s panel of independent conference speakers: 630 members in the 25 Member States. The members are lawyers, consultants, academics, etc. covering all fields of activity of the Union’s policies and working languages. They are recruited by the Commission’s Representations in the Member States”.
This is a very long post, but I believe to be necessary following the Commission’s announcement that it would be activating its network to provide propaganda in the forthcoming referendum campaign.

Neil Herron

As this concerns our Constitution, this is an open letter.
Further points on this matter from my letter above. “In spite of the Law Lords ruling or perhaps because of it I also state here that foreign nationals are different to British Nationals, for the latter owe allegiance to the Crown and this Country, foreign nationals do not”.

No British national should be treated differently from other British nationals, and no foreign nationals should be treated differently from other foreign nationals. The Human Rights Act is completely incompatible with our Constitution and should be repealed.

Anne Palmer

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Council opts out of regional body:

“Medway Council has withdrawn its membership of the regional assembly and is calling for others to do the same.

‘Medway risks denying itself the opportunity for its voice to be heard in these vital debates.’

These Regional assemblies are part of the EU regional process, they are the embryos of local government which are designed supposedly to bring democracy closer to the people, and to strengthen the feeling of local government in the country as a sop to those who feel the loss of sovereignty as more powers are passed to the EU, all this and much more was highlighted in the FCO paper 1971.

It is interesting to see the basic outline of the Europhile arguments we are still hearing set out in such detail and shows the paucity of that argument as the same old lines are trotted out endlessly, it must be assumed that the hope is if these lies are repeated endlessly people will eventually start to believe….

SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

FCO 30/1048 - 1971

(ii) the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic
Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from
government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic
processes within the member states and effective Community regional economic
and social policies will be essential.

Times Online - Comment

Proposed vote on EU constitution
From Mr Bill Cash, MP for Stone (Conservative)

Sir, Denis MacShane`s assertions (letter, February 28) are unsustainable. The European Court frequently uses EU law to expand EU power, interpreting treaties in furtherance of European unity as Mr Jonathan Morgan (letter, March 3) indicates.

Far from the Government having always accepted that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have legal force, Mr MacShane`s predecessor as Minister for Europe, Keith Vaz, said that it would be no more legally binding than the Beano.

The European constitution would re-engineer the limited primacy of 1972, which has been extended into the field of European government under successive treaties and now the constitution, which would be implemented into our law by the European Union Bill.

This new primacy under the constitution (which revokes the existing treaties and laws) would override our laws and constitution, creating a new conferred competence. The new treaty includes acquiescence in the case law of the European Court under which it asserts constitutional jurisdiction over the member states, including our Parliament. On March 1, France changed her constitution to accommodate this.

I have tabled 230 amendments to the European Union Bill, including a Supremacy of Parliament clause under which, where Parliament legislates inconsistently with European treaties and laws, including the constitution, our judges would continue to give effect to such legislation, and not accept the supremacy of European constitutional law.

No wonder we need a referendum and a  vote.

Yours faithfully,
BILL CASH,
(Shadow Attorney-General, 2001-03),
House of Commons.
March 4.