Food For Thought, Should we be in the E.U. ?

[Red Lead Ted]

Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?





Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn't actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid.

In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath's Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.)

Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'.

However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes'. But that isn't true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey's `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution' published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested'. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.' Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'.

In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn't just another Act of Parliament. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.' Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.)

So, for example, Parliament was dissolved in 1831/2 to obtain the electorate's authority for the Reform Bill and again in 1910 following the Lord's rejection of the Liberal Finance Bill.

In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined'.

Wilson's referendum was inspired solely by the realisation that the consent of the electorate ought first to have been obtained before we joined the EEC. The lack of legitimacy of the European Communities Act brought about the decision by the incoming Prime Minister and Labour leadership that a referendum should be held in preference to yet another general election.

But, almost inevitably, the question asked in the referendum was also illegal since voters were asked: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?'

The problem was that since Heath had ignored the constitution duties and requirements of Parliament and had signed the entrance documents illegally the words `stay in' were deceptive. We couldn't stay in the EEC because, constitutionally, we had never entered. We couldn't enter the Common Market because Parliament did not have the right to sign away our sovereignty.

The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath's constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson's referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued' membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.)

Attempts through the courts to annul our membership of the European Union on the basis that Parliament acted improperly have failed because Parliament, through its legal sovereignty, is the source of the law in Britain and the courts are, therefore, unable to challenge any Parliamentary Act.

Only Parliament can reclaim the legislative powers that Heath and subsequent Prime Ministers have handed to the European Union.

And so, only when Parliament is filled with honest politicians (not inevitably an oxymoron) who are not controlled by the private party system will the mistake be rectified and our membership annulled.

Britain's entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty.

Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate.

Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson's election tactics.) The reward of £35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome.

Because of Heath's dishonesty we never actually joined the Common Market. And so all the subsequent treaties that were signed were illegal.

Britain's Treason Act (1351) is (at the time of writing) still in place. It states `that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm'.

And under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if `any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom.'

Our membership of the European Union will mean the end of the United Kingdom. So, since our membership of the European Union will doubtless `deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom' Britain's entry into the Common Market, under Edward Heath's signature, was null and void.

Heath committed an act of treason. He betrayed the Queen and he deliberately misled the British people.

Does any of this really matter to politicians?

Is there any hope that Parliament will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and restore sovereignty to the people? Not in the immediate future.

But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy.

Because, officially, we never joined.

An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club. Isnt that what we done when we voted out, Or are they simply not listening to our soverienty, { THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN }

[j.sabourn]

In other words Terry is what a lot of us have said, we were taken into Europe by self indulgent MPs through a smokescreen to fool the electorate at the time. The Common Market was and is not the E.U. In fact the EU is a foreign government making UK legislation. If any British Judge does not rule in this way, he doesn't deserve to be a judge. JS

[happy daze john in oz]

- - - Updated - - -


Constitutionaly what the UK joined was the EEC, that morphed into the EU.

It could be argued thta any nation that joined the EEC was in just that and the change may well have been made without the consent of the people.

The call for the supreme court to rule that the matter must be explored by the parliament before article 50 can be signed is incorrect.

Under the Uk constitution a referendum, as the one that led to Brexit, is a legal binding instrament that the government of the day must abide by.

The referendum was authorized by the government so it is legal being.

I am of the opinion that those who are brining the challenges do so in the hope the gov will get so fed up with it all they will do nothing.

But the public, the electorate to be exact, will no doubt at the next election show exactly how they feel about a gov that goes against of the people.

[John Pruden]

there I that much red tape and rules in the club will we ever get out that's if we were in in the first place... jp

[vic mcclymont]

The whole concept of the EU was to stop Germany and France knocking hell out of each other on a regular basis.
Many people misquote Churchill, he was an ardent fan of integration, but not for the UK. He stated faced with a choice of joining the EU or remaining on our own the UK should always chose the open sea.
The EU is based on Les and deceit, Monet the who was the chief architect of the EU, stated that progress should be slow so as not alarm the people. He also said if caught out, take a step back and take another approach. The integration of Europe in to a super state would not happen over night but could take years.
The first stage of a super state is the banishing or reducing the nation state, hence free movement.
Regards
Vic

[Red Lead Ted]

#2 J.S. Not just for that reason although i agree with you, The first Prime Minister to try to lead Britain into the EEC was Harold Wilson who, from 1966, was convinced that Britain could not survive outside the EEC. His Government's application to join, in May 1967 was vetoed by General de Gaulle, the French president, whose life and career had been saved by the British during the Second World War but whose loyalties were first to himself, second to France and not at all to Britain. Actually, French President Charles de Gaulle rejected Britain's application to join the Common Market twice. In public he argued that Britain, a traditional island nation, was not suited to be part of a European superstate. That was just political flim-flam. In reality he rejected Britain (despite everything that Britain had done for him and France during the Second World War) because he wanted to delay Britain's entry until the Common Agricultural Policy (designed to give huge subsidies to French peasant farmers) had been properly set up. Once the CAP was in place the loathsome de Gaulle suddenly decided that Britain's island history no longer mattered, and he became enthusiastic about Britain joining the Common Market. Naturally, he really wanted Britain to join the Market in order to help pay for the costs of running the CAP and keeping French farmers satisfied. There are a lot of French farmers, and they have always been a powerful voting block. Right from the start of the EU Britain has been used by both America and France. And it is still happening. We have never had a fair crack of the whip while in the EEC ? And its the right time to get the hell out burn our bridges and get back to trading with the Commonwealth Countries who i might add are waiting in the wings. Terry.

[John F Collier]

I saved these voting results of the local towns in this area, the turn out averaged 77% I think it was pretty decisive.
REMAIN, - LEAVE,
BASILDON 30,748 - 67,251
BRAINTREE 33,523 - 52,713
BRENTWOOD, 19,077 - 27,627
CASTLE POINT 14,154 - 37,607
CHELMSFORD 47,565 - 53,249
COLCHESTER 44,414 - 51,305
EPPING FOREST 28,678 - 48,176
HARLOW 13,867 - 29,602
MALDON 14,529 - 24,302
ROCHFORD 17,510 - 34,927
SOUTHEND 39,348 - 54,522
TENDRING 25,210 - 57,447
THURROCK 22,151 - 57,765
UTTLEFORD 25,619 - 26,324

Every town in this area of Essex voted to leave, that well backs up the national vote, "THE REMAINERS SHOULD NOW SHUT UP" cheers JC

[Ivan Cloherty]

#6 also Terry The USA cancelled all France's Lend Lease debts which helped them enormously, the American President advising his Senate at that time, it would not be wise to cancel the UK's debts as it would not be wise for Britain to become a world sea power again, because that was now America's role.

With some friends you don't need enemies

[Red Lead Ted]

Ivan, The North Sea Fisherman also suffered both Lowerstoft and Great Yarmouth, Once boasted 1,000s of fishing boats and where only going back to the mid 60s
"They used to say you could walk from one side of the harbour to the other across the boats. Try that now and you are going to get very wet indeed. In the last five years more and more people have given up. A lot have gone away from Yarmouth to do other things."
Mr Clarke and his older brother Jason, 37, who fish for cod, sole, mackerel and lobster, said they will continue to battle against the tide although they fear they will be the last.
He said: "We've got no plans to stop. The fishing's good at the moment and we're making a living. But I don't think there'll be a fifth generation. I've got two sons - aged eight and six - but I think I'd urge them to do a different job.
"The pressure with quotas and everything else is getting too much. The quotas are just ridiculous. If the quotas were sensible I'd like to think there was a future in fishing in Yarmouth. But as it is, no.
Nikki Hale, the chief executive of Eastern England Fish Producers' Association, said Many fishermen have got out because it is just not economically viable to carry on. The ones that are left are not talking about making profits. They are now talking about survival.
As for the Fisherman of Scotland, In his own words. Peterhead Fisherman............. Jimmy Buchan,
The Aberdeenshire town of Peterhead is Europe's largest white fish port, so the topic could hardly be more crucial.
The Scottish government believes that EU membership is in the best interests of Scotland's fishing industry.

In 2014, Scotland exported £449m of fish and seafood to Europe - 68% of the total value of Scottish food exports into that market.
Worldwide, seafood exports are the second largest food and drink export behind whisky, and the industry supports thousands of jobs.
Peterhead alone handles tens of millions of pounds worth of fish annually.
Much stays in the UK to be processed, including for the country's fish and chip shops and supermarkets, but the European market is also hungry for the quality, fresh product, especially the likes of Spain.
Before the processors can export, the fish has to be landed. And European regulations governing catches have long been a bone of contention for those fishermen out at sea.
The technical measures for fishermen can roughly fall into three groups;
Minimum legal sizes of fish
Fishing gear design including mesh sizes
Restricting fishing in some areas or seasons
One main aim is limiting the catch of unwanted notably juvenile fish.
In 2013, major reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy was approved.
The reform package included measures to protect endangered stocks, bring in more regional management and have more long-term planning.
Incidents of throwing dead fish back into the sea had increased due to restrictions on which fish could be landed.
Gradually eliminating discards of unwanted catches.

Mr Buchan believes it is now time to leave European control behind.
He told the BBC Scotland news website: "Decades of failures have left us with little or no alternative but to vote for Brexit.
All about the EU is not bad but on balance our industry has been badly treated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are pressured by lobbyists in Brussels.
It's too far removed, one glove does not fit all.
He explained: "I left school in 1976 to begin fishing, I have always been under the union.
It was a common market, but over the years it got worse and worse and worse, some businesses are being strangled by regulations.
Landing obligations cannot work unless quotas rise - it will be the final nail in the coffin.
Processors have had to suffer hardship too, but some will think their market is out there in Europe so they have a commercial decision to make.
Decades of failures have left us with little or no alternative but to vote for Brexit."
When I go to the ballot box, it's time to take that leap in the dark. I am prepared, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
He continued This is a lifetime, generational change.
"We have weathered a decline in stocks and things are on the up thanks to sustainability and responsibility we are much wiser than we were 40 odd years ago.
We need to see investment in young people now never more so with the collapse of the oil and gas sector.
New boats are on order, so people can see an element of a future. Will it be a future free from Europe?
Let's try something different and allow our communities to thrive, creating work and business growth. I wonder has Nicola Sturgeon, And Alex Salmond had a conversation with fisherman like this, Maybe more to the point they really dont give a hoot and have bigger fish to fry. Terry.

[vic mcclymont]

Terry, EU fishing boats especially they Spanish are giant hoover boats that suck the sea bed dry, British boats use the traditional methods of trawling.
Over the years our fishing industry has been decimated, countries that do not have a coast line with the North Sea are given permits.
Fishing Industry suffered badly from the EU regulations, result many jobs lost.
French fishermen can fish on the UK side of the channel whilst our fisher men are banned from fishing anywhere in the channel.
Sugar Refining has also suffered badly, in 1997, the EU decreed that the UK had an over capacity for sugar refining, result, two refineries closed.
The last sugar cane refinery in London pays an exorbitant levy on imported sugar cane in order to support in efficient French farmers
Shipbuilding also suffered as the EU imposed, restrictions, and forced yards into non core business.
Whilst researching the sugar industry for something I am working on, not one French, German sugar refinery closed, even Latvia had to close a refinery because of EU quotas.
Salmond and Sturgeon, both a waste of space.
Salmond encouraged the RBS to buy the Dutch Bank which led to the downfall of the RBS.
Sturgeon, claims that everything is London based, she does exactly the same by concentrating on Glasgow and Edinburgh.
A company down south who build and export hover craft are banned from selling to Brazil, because there is no export treaty with the EU and Brazil.
No doubt others can quote other examples of how the EU impinges n the UK.
Regards
Vic