DEMOCRACY BETRAYED

The unelected EU bureaucrats line peddled by so many is absurd and one that’s quite easily debunked by simply reading and processing information that’s so readily available. Unfortunately you can lead someone to all the information that they’ll ever need but you can’t force anyone to actually think.

Whilst we’re on the subject of the unelected, it’s worth noting that the current PM is dancing to the tune of Dominic Cummings who isn’t even a member of the Conservative party let alone elected by the masses.

We’re living in very peculiar times.

 

Ok , I'm happy to give pp pepper a break and at least try to come up with some sort of conclusion to his thread title . Stolen off another forum I post on but worth a read ........

Was Ted Heath committing treason when he signed Britain into the EU?




Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?
by Vernon Coleman – 2011

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.

Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman’s book OFPIS

 

Youve used the phrase trading block twice.

If the sole intention of the EU was to remain a trading block of soveriegn nations then we wouldnt be having this discussion.

 

“Was Ted Heath committing treason...?”

Amazing.

 

I’m saying it is the world’s largest trading bloc. Is it not?

I live and work in Barnsley and see the struggle of the Everyman and the working class on a daily basis. I’m in no hurry to see them nor I be any worse off for absolutely no reason.

 

Political issues have become sport. You support your team (brexit, trump, Johnson) regardless of what happens or anyone says. People will support their team through any scandals and nobody could ever say anything to you that’s going to make you say ‘you know what, I don’t support this team anymore’.
You enjoy bragging rights when your team wins; ‘we won, get over it’.
The manipulative far right have realised this and know that people are not interested in the details of how their ‘team’ is going to make everybody’s life harder or even their own.
All that matters is supporting their team through thick and thin and keeping bragging rights over their rivals.
This is incredibly effective on those that might not have historically voted or followed politics as it provides plenty of sound bites to repeat and ‘chant’ without delving too far into the detail.

 

Astonishing. Has Boris Johnson read this?

 

Interesting - but it hangs its first premise ‘Heath was in breach of the spirit of the constitution’ on just the spirit of the constitution as we don’t have a written one. Then negates the referendum to keep us in as being invalid only specifically in writing.

Surely the ‘spirit’ of the referendum to make the original decision ‘right’ is valid then?

Otherwise those 2 decisions are being treated unequally just to make an argument.

 

Not hearing any backup for the Eu insisting that we agree the divorce bill etc before any future relationship is agreed?

In a nutshell, without this red line from the EU and they well know it, most deals would have got through parliament and we would have left by now.

So when those heading the leave campaign said it would be simple, yes it would.

So if we go back to the EU and say, scrap that withdrawal agreement, agree the future relationship paying the already agreed exit bill then in the future a much smaller payment to give access to the single market. Create 'Max Shared Standards' agreement which basically would mean if the UK has higher standards for a product / service, they adhere to that and vice versa. Allow businesses to self certify this to avoid any customs disruptions. Still allow freedom of movement as never had any problems with that particular issue, with the exception of allowing a temporary restriction on long term migration to be put in place by the government should our infrastructure be under pressure, just keep it very flexible. Seasonal workers and leisure travel, no change. ECJ no longer to be supreme over any UK laws, agricultural and fisheries fully returned to UK policy approach. UK retains control over trade policy outside of EU, even where the EU may have an existing deal in place, maybe agree a bolt on policy to access the existing terms. Modern times need modern creative approaches.

So if that was the approach, extend the deadline by 6 months.. Thrash out the full deal get it through parliament and move on.

 

Leo Varadkar in his speech today with Johnson said that the first 3 things to discuss when the come back to the table will be outstanding money, citizens rights and Irish border.

Rumours are the French will insist on an extension to a minimum end 2020 so the UK govt can sort themselves out.

 

And you genuinely think areas like ours will receive the same investment from our own govt post-Brexit as we did from the EU??

Good luck with that, yeah?

 

My interpretation is that because we joined the EEC without a vote and that by joining the EEC that in turn changed our constitution the original act of parliament is nul and void . Though a vote took place some years later at the time of our joining no vote had taken place making the act illegal . Maybe a new act should have been legislated in 75 after the vote to make it legally binding ? An interesting article non the less......

 

But, Parliament is still sovereign irrespective of the UK’s EU membership.

 

But you ve altered sovereignty . For example , the UK cannot strike a trade deal with who it pleases which in my book is an erosion of sovereignty . Should the people decide via parliamentary institutions then the crown has every right to follow through on that instruction . From the article......

. (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.)

 

It doesn’t have ultimate authority over the UK. The fact that we can crash out of the EU is testament to Parliament’s sovereignty.

 

Genuine question and just asking because I don't know the answer. Apart from warehouses, what other EU investment has there been?

 

A bit of background in this article

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...-what-the-eu-has-done-for-yorkshire-1-7972455

 

South Yorkshire secured Objective 1 and Objective 2 funding in the late 90's and early 00's. I can't recall the exact amount but it was in the many millions and provided "free" training and skilling for many businesses, as well as 40% subsidy for other training, qualifications, courses and coaching.

I also had a feeling there were funds in place that were in part additionally supported by the RDA's for things like the advanced manufacturing park of the Sheffield Parkway. I'm sure there were many other things seeing South Yorkshire was considered an area in need of support. And obviously other areas in the Uk would have received objective 1 and 2 funds too.

 

And what we would get in the next decade if we remain.....don't expect our government to match it...

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/...-mp-seeks-government-match-fund-promise-40623

http://www.lindamcavanmep.org.uk/la...uge-injection-of-eu-cash-if-uk-remained-in-eu

So basically we will miss out on €650m in funding for our area thanks to leaving.....turkeys and Christmas.