eurealist.co.uk

A little local problem

Shropshire Star

MPs voted not to give us a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty by 311 to 248, this is despite all three main parties promising a referendum.

Labour and the Lib Dems both claim that the EU Reform Treaty and EU constitution are different enough not to warrant a referendum - this is an outright lie.

The EU Reform Treaty produces the same end result as the constitution except references to the flag and anthem of the EU are moved to an appendix which is voluntary.

The constitution replaced existing treaties, the EU Reform Treaty amends them. The payload is the same, it is the method of delivery that is different.

A private referendum by iwantareferendum.com showed that 88 per cent of the electorate wants a referendum on the treaty. David Wright and all the other (mainly Labour) MPs who voted against a referendum did so in the full knowledge they were going against the wishes of their constituents.

I will do everything I can to ensure that David Wright loses his seat at the next election for his treachery.

Stuart Parr, Brookside

Stuart said: Mar 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Good for you namesake. If thousands of other people did
the same in each constituency where the sitting MP reneged
on the party’s promise to let us have a referendum, they
would soon learn that treachery and flaunting the
expectations and wishes of the electorate by voting against
them would cost them very dear.
But we shouldn’t be to surprised should we, manifestos
mean nothing, promises are meant to be broken, waffle,
rhetoric, downright deceit, spin and betrayal are all the
stock in trade of MPs, particularly those of New Labour.

Peter said: Mar 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am

They promised a referendum on a constiution. This wasn’t a constitution, it was a treaty, no more significant in many ways than those that have gone before. The ‘Little Englanders’ lost - end of story.

I posted not yet moderated!

 Well done Peter top marks for blindly and unquestionable following the party line.

However no matter what they call the Lisbon thingy it will become the constitution of the EU, just like all previous treaties.  The EU treaties are treaties between nation states, they set up and define the rules for a third party in this case the EU. Hence Lisbon is the constitution of the EU.  

You are of course totally free to believe anything you wish, but please do not try to pull the wool over the eyes of people who have studied the European Project because we do happen to know of  what we speak.

And please do try to be reasonably up to date with your insults - Little Englanders -when out with the ark, can you people not ever manage to keep up with an ever changing world of empty meaningless rhetoric.

Good one from Eurosoc

Because the British grumble about the number of asylum seekers in the country (and, more regularly, the hopeless failure of the government to sort out the deserving from the chancers), an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that as a nation, we dislike the idea of allowing foreigners onto our little islands.Nothing could be further from the truth. It just depends on the foreigner. News that various hijackers, religious fanatics and vicious criminals can stay in Britain is greeted with fury in pubs up and down the country. This emotion, however, is matched with bewilderment at the government’s refusal to grant the loyal Nepalese soldiers of the Gurkhas the right to live in Britain - in many cases, after risking their lives for Queen and Country.

Cont…

The government is using the 1689 Bill of Rights, which establishes the principle that parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by the courts, as one central argument in its legal battle to prevent Gateway reviews into the feasibility and progress of the government’s ID cards project becoming public.

Gateway reviews ID cards project

As reported in ComputerWeekly.com

The irony of this should not be missed, because much of our recent legalisation is in direct opsition to the Bill of Rights which is why many like to argue that the Bill of Rights has no legal meaning, as it has been superseded by later legislation. Although the final ruling in the Metric martyrs case by Lord Justice Laws specifically ruled that this was not the case because the Bill of Rights was a constitutional statute and could not therefore be changed by implication in later legislation.

The Laws Ruling maintained constancy with the concept of parliamentary supremacy because he did not rule that parliament could not change the Bill of rights, only that to do so it would have to do it directly.

As the Bill of Rights has not been changed directly for over three hundred years most of is still relevant. For the government to use the Bill however is going to be problematic, because by implication they are admitting it is still relevant and they cannot just pick and choose which bits they like and continue to ignore the other bits they do not like.

This is particularly interesting because as I mentioned in a previous post our parliament voted down an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty:

Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.

It would seem our elected leaders want to have their cake and eat it.

Update email exchanges

From: Bill & Ann:

If the government win their case on this then surely the implications

must be that the Bill of Rights precludes the European Court of Justice

from questioning laws passed by parliament.  In other words what Bill

Cash has been trying to achieve in the last few days.  For that reason

alone it is worth watching the outcome. B&A

From Michael Shrimptom:

No, it only applies to parliamentary proceedings.

 The ECJ cannot overturn an Act of Parliament - the Factortame case, which

suggested the contrary, was monist, wrong and is no longer followed by the

courts, thanks to Metric Martyr.