That Exit Clause Again

The Europhile spin put on the EU Constitution Exit Clause, would have us all belive that we can not leave the EU at the moment because there is no EU recognised legal apparatus for doing so. The implication being; if we wish to leave the EU then first we must ratify the EU Constitution, which contains an exit clause that will enable us to do so.

This argument, to be blunt, is arrant nonsense, this fact however does not stop this misunderstanding being pressed for all its worth.
Link to the earlier letters in this particular debate in the Scotsman, but Dr Cooper makes the correct case when he says;

“We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU”

This is the point which is missed; at present the EU derives its power form the member states, through their treaties, if (god forbid) the Constitution is ever ratified, then it will derive its power from that constitution.

Lord Justice Laws explains the difference between a treaty and a constitution

“There is a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.
This brings me, then, to the meaning of constitution. In what does a constitution
consist? Stripped to the bone, I think that a constitution’s minimum characteristics are twofold. (1) The constitution consists in the laws which define who shall be the ruler of the State, and what are the legal relationships between ruler and ruled; and (2) there are no laws superior to those which the constitution contains.”

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=140882006

Progressive erosion

Dr DR Cooper (Letters, 23 January) tells us the European Court of Justice exceeded its authority in 1962 in describing the loss of sovereignty of European Union members as permanent and that its view has been rejected by national courts where the question has been posed. He also quotes our joining the then Common Market as authorising its parliament to “contract out” in a succession of treaties practically all its own legislative powers.

However, at that time, the Foreign Office certainly believed the EEC to be “a single permanent coalition”. Hence, presumably, the inclusion in the now resurrected European constitution of a new clause providing for voluntary withdrawal by a member state.

MARY ROLLS, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire

Sir

Mrs Mary Rolls raised an important point about the “exit clause”, Article I-60, in the proposed EU Constitution.

(Letter, January 28th)

Clearly the Wilson government was undeterred by the lack of any such provision in the Treaty of Rome, as it held a referendum to decide whether the UK would withdraw from the EEC. Interestingly, 1975 Cabinet Office papers entitled “EEC Referendum: ‘No’ contingency planning; implications of withdrawal” have just been opened by National Archives.

The government leaflet for the referendum emphasised that even if we decided to stay in Parliament retained the right to take us out in the future, simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. That position has been re-stated by ministers in recent years, and was confirmed by Lord Justice Laws in the “Metric Martyrs” case. We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU – which by its crucial primacy claim, Article I-6, purports to become the supreme source of legal authority for our country.

Yours faithfully

Dr D R Cooper

Similar Posts:

• The Exit Clause and British Sovereignty
• Would Britain be allowed to leave the EU?
• Archaic at 23
• Challenge to Eurosceptics
• So Parliament will debate the EU Constitution?
• EU exit
• Issues of Misdirection
• A Golf Club