eurealist.co.uk

From Anne Palmer an exchange of letters the constituion
received this reply 29.7.2005.

Dear Ms Palmer,

Thank you for your letter of 8 June regarding the Oath of Allegiance sworn by MP’s.

Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. Having received this democratic mandate, they should not have to take an oath to an unelected institution to carry it out, be it the monarchy or indeed the EU.

One of the worrying features of the UK system of government is that it is not founded on the idea of popular sovereignty, but on parliamentary sovereignty. The long standing constitutional view has been that Parliament can change any law without limit. My own view is that we need a thoroughgoing reform of the constitutional arrangements in Britain so that the sovereignty of the people is recognised. I remain open to persuasion that a drastically reformed monarchy might be compatible with this.

I therefore, feel it is important that the monarchy, as a central part of the British constitution, is not simply excluded from democratic debate. We must be able to consider whether the constitutional arrangements which we have inherited are appropriate for us in the modern world.

As regards the EU Constitution, I agree with you that this should be subject to a referendum before possible implementation, and indeed, that is the policy of all three major parties in the UK.

I hope this is helpful,

Yours sincerely

Norman Baker MP.

Address removed

1.8.2005.

Dear Mr Baker,

I thank you for your reply and your intimation that you are open to persuasion that a drastically reformed monarchy might be compatible with this. Perhaps I might be able to persuade you otherwise?

You state that, “Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. Having received this democratic mandate, they should not have to take an oath to an unelected institution to carry it out, be it the monarchy or indeed the EU”. Have you taken a referendum in your constituency on the subject of whether, according to your constituent’s views, you should or should not make an Oath of Allegiance to our Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II? Any person born here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain from the moment they are born, it is as if they have said the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown? The Oaths of Office are more detailed and greater loyalty is expected from each of those that make that Oath. The people know where their MP stands and they can be brought to task if they break that Oath. That is why solemn oaths are taken, to make sure you are aware of those duties and your commitment to the whole constitutional process and the reason you are in Parliament. This is why EU Commissioners make their solemn oaths to the Union and they take that Oath very seriously. None so far has tried to change it.

I am aware that changes to the Oath have been proposed before and I remember the time when those people associated with terrorists and acts of terrorism, having been voted in by their constituents as Members of our Parliament would not take the Oath of Allegiance and so were refused entry into the Chamber of the House of Commons, it is right that this be so, and it is right that it should remain so. Changes to the Oath were suggested at that time by some MP’s to allow their entry into the Chamber, but this was rejected. The people will not be with you for any proposed changes to allow them to sit now.

You wrote, “One of the worrying features of the UK system of government is that it is not founded on the idea of popular sovereignty, but on parliamentary sovereignty”. The UK system of Government survived quite well until 1997 when this Government started to modernise our Parliamentary system through systematic destruction of it. Slowly at first from our entry into the then European Community we have transferred sovereignty (authority) away from our own Parliament, to the European Union. “Popular sovereignty” or even “Parliamentary Sovereignty” is now in very short supply and very little attention has been paid to “preserving” that precious sovereignty.

You write, “The long standing constitutional view has been that Parliament can change any law without limit”. It was established in 1932 that, “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation 1, KB 733) This of course still stands (for now-and I say that because it has recently been debated otherwise because of incoming EU legislation see “Aspects of the EU’s Constitutional Treaty” Volume 1. Printed 23rd March 2005, page19 see below for your ease).

However, that excludes some our Common Law Constitution, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc. Start to unravel the Act of Settlement and Act of Union etc and more than expected may fall apart, for the former includes the Common Wealth Countries and the latter maybe the undoing of the United Kingdom and its Parliament in which you now have the privilege of sitting.

My own view is that we need a thoroughgoing reform of the constitutional arrangements in Britain so that the sovereignty of the people is recognised. All the Government has done thus far, has ignored the people. I went on the Wakelam trail regarding the changes in the House of Lords. The people were ignored.

“I therefore, feel it is important that the monarchy, as a central part of the British constitution, is not simply excluded from democratic debate. We must be able to consider whether the constitutional arrangements which we have inherited are appropriate for us in the modern world”. I believe the Monarchy must have a bigger and more central role. When the “Royal Prerogative” is required, for the first time in many years, the Queen should be the one to decide (without fear or favour) whether her Kingdom is to be given away to be governed by foreigners or what laws she approves of. Should we continue to apply parts of the EU Constitution without a referendum, MP’s will eventually make themselves redundant. The constitutional arrangements that you inherited will be restored, respected and remain long after

those that would bury it now.

“As regards the EU Constitution, I agree with you that this should be subject to a referendum before possible implementation, and indeed, that is the policy of all three major parties in the UK”. My letters states, “You say also to uphold democracy, I see very little of that “democracy” when 60 million people have not been allowed the promised democratic referendum on the EU Constitution, when our democratic (secret) vote is changed by this present Government to allow a ‘postal vote’ that has been likened by a Judge to “a Banana Republic”. I did not say I approved of a referendum, just that 60 million people had been promised a referendum and they have now been prevented from having that referendum. I personally would not ask for a referendum on something that I believe to be unlawful/illegal in the first place. To even ask the people to accept a constitution that automatically takes precedence over our own Constitution is unlawful/illegal and I point to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the constitution “is an act of Treason”

No man can be loyal to two masters.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

As this Concerns our Constitution, this is an open letter.

House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Aspects of the EU’s Constitutional Treaty, page 19.

32. We accept that, in strictly legal terms, the primacy provision in Article 1-6 of the Constitutional Treaty does not alter the existing relationship between EU law and national law, or the means by which any conflict between them is resolved, or the extent of parliamentary sovereignty. International obligations, including EU law in general and the primacy principle in particular, can take effect in domestic law in the UK only through an Act of Parliament, which can in turn be amended or repealed by a later Act.

The principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors ultimately depends on acceptance by the UK’s courts, and we note the theoretical possibility that explicit agreement by the UK Parliament to the primacy principle in the Constitutional Treaty could result, over time, in the UK’s courts giving greater weight to that principle as against any UK legislation inconsistent with it. However, if Parliament were to pass legislation which was clearly expressed to be inconsistent with EU laws, it would amount to a constitutional and legal revolution for any court in the UK to assert that the principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors no longer applied, and we consider it inconceivable that any court in the UK would, in any foreseeable circumstances, behave in this way. Our conclusion is therefore that the codification of the principle of primacy in article 1-6 of the Constitutional Treaty would maintain the existing situation. END

The fact remains that in those areas covered by the “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, due to be put through the Hague Programme if not the EU Constitution, Member States will no longer be able to apply their own national rules/laws if they conflict with Union Law. It would of course be against our Constitution if the people can no longer enjoy their RIGHTS under their Common Laws of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights etc.

I would add that there is a difference between a Constitution and a Treaty, and the EU Constitution is just that, a constitution for the whole of the European Union. The EU Member States would constitutionally and legally become just part players within that constitution with their national democracy that you speak of, their sovereignty and political independence given away freely (at an incalculable price) as they subordinate themselves to the superior entity of the European Union. BUT the people will not be with you.