eurealist.co.uk

This from appeared in the Scotsman this morning and was sent by e-mail from Dr Cooper with a note above the letter.

Mrs Rolls writes very anti-EU good letters, but I have to disagree with her on this. The editor has deleted “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” which I had put before “UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired”, but as somebody writing to the Scotsman from England I’m always grateful that they print my letters at all.

The Scotsman
Mrs DA Rolls (Letters, 6 January) doubts whether the Westminster parliament can terminate its contract with the European Union simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. However, that is precisely the basis on which the British people voted to remain in the then Common Market, in the 1975 referendum.

The government leaflet, distributed to every household, said: “Fact No 3: The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on 1 January, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.”

That remains the case. Indeed, in September 2004, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told the Commons: “Because we are a sovereign nation, parliament itself will have the final right to decide, at any stage, whether it wishes us to remain a member of this treaty-based organisation.”
UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. We only have to insist that our MPs do all the work we pay them for, rather than sub-contracting much of it to Brussels.
(DR) DR COOPER

To a certain extent I do agree with Dr Cooper, however I think the point at issues lies in the words “a treaty based organisation” he is most certainly right that the British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market, which in turn means that final sovereignty lies with our parliament. However until or unless they do repeal the act then we must abide by EU rules and EU laws, that is the case at present.

But what about when they introduce or rather re-introduce the EU Constitution, which is still a treaty, but as its title makes clear; it is “a Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, so in that event it would not be a treaty based organisation but an organisation based on its own constitution.

The point is made clear in the Constitution itself; quite simply because it contains the exit clause, a Treaty between independent nation states does not require such a clause because as Dr Cooper points out in his letter and note “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. The UK is thus the final arbiter of its own destiny without reference to any other organisation, this is why none of the other EU Treaties have needed or have indeed had such a clause.

The exit clause at present is quite simple requiring the state which wishes to leave to make its decision known and to wait two years; however just like all other clauses this can be changed and the rules tightened, the constitution allows for such a change, by a simple agreement in the council, without having to reefer the matter back to the British parliament or the people.

The important breach in our own parliament’s sovereign ability would have already been made by the constitution setting conditions on any decisions to withdraw, and once that has happened, it becomes a much simpler matter to change those conditions, until eventually that power is removed completely from parliament.

It is also worth remembering that along the road to a European state the promoters are quite willing to make temporary arrangements, and allow temporary vetoes ect. The important word is temporary the plan is that eventually it will not be possible for a state legally to leave the union.

As was made clear in the FCO paper 1971
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

FCO 30/1048 - 1971

In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well
as the erosion of “parliamentary sovereignty”.

The process outlined is an exceedingly long-term one, and depends upon
the continuing progressive development of the Community. For a very long
time - almost certainly until the end of the century - the major member states
would retain the practical “last resort” political possibility of succession
(albeit in probable breach of international obligations and with increasingly
damaging economic consequences for the defector). So long as the member state’s
participation is subject to national scrutiny and can in practice be withdrawn,
it may be said that the nation’s status as an equal and independent state
in the international community will be unaffected. Parliament’s power will
likewise survive; if Britain can in practice renounce the Treaty then the
Community laws which are applied automatically within the member states are
seen to depend upon the continuing (and pre-eminent) acquiescence of Parliament
which may in the last resort be withdrawn.

22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member
states can hardly lose the “last resort” ability to withdraw in much less
than three decades. The Community’s development could produce before then
a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful.
If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty
(and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt
for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and
practical would indeed be diminished. Eurealist Files