• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:42:28 AM »


Rodney Atkinson

16th January 2013

Even before David Cameron sits down to negotiate his "new relationship" with the European Union aggressive threats emanate from EU leaders. The Dutch say they don't like opt outs, some Germans say we can't pick and choose and the Eurocrat parachuted in as the unelected Prime Minister of Italy said "In Europe there are some who feel their heart would be lighter if the UK left the EU". So much for Mr Cameron's "friends" and "partners"!
Such comments - and even a passing acquaintance with the history, structure and constitution of the European Union - indicate that it is extremely unlikely that what is acceptable to the builders of the "country called Europe" can come to an agreement with a people wishing to maintain their existence as a nation state and enjoy democratic sovereignty.

The critical loss of the United Kingdom, its parliament and its democracy was in the provisions of the 1971 Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community (and all judgments of the European Court prior to 1971) - put into UK law by the 1972 Act of Parliament.
The infamous Section 2 of that Act surrendered the crucial constitutional power about which the "Kilmuir letter" from the then Lord Chancellor to Heath had warned would be unprecedented.
"?would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers
 even in wartime we have ever experienced??.the surrender
of sovereignty involved is serious"

Heath ensured that this devastating Letter was censored and remained secret for 30 years, possibly the most treasonous act of any British leader for a thousand years.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 (ratified by the 1993 Act) merely extended the control conceded in 1972 and in particular affirmed the concept of the acquis communautaire ("occupied field theory") - which together with the requirement for unanimity among EU member states before a member state can regain powers, will be the un-surmountable obstacles to any repatriation of powers to the United Kingdom.

The European Court is charged with furthering "integration" and acting in the interests of the "Community" not its individual members. It promotes the "Occupied Field" which states that once the EC has legislated in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity.
And of course the scope for European Court judgments is vast - because the political agreement of 12 countries (never mind today's 27) was only possible through vague and ambiguous language of the kind which requires national judiciaries to refer constantly to the European Court.
As Martin Howe QC has rightly said: If we remain subject to Community law, and to the European Court's interpretation of the Treaties, no agreement or treaty defining or limiting the powers of Europe can be safely relied upon - simply because it will be re-interpreted by the Court, over time, to expand those powers again.

While John Major was trumpeting the triumph of the Maastricht Treaty and its theory of "subsidiarity" which would ostensibly return powers to the nation states Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude were signing the Maastricht Treaty in full knowledge of the acquis communautaire which completely contradicted the subsidiarity idea. The European Commission set out the real position:

"The enshrinement of subsidiarity in the Treaty (of Maastricht)...provided
an opportunity to stress that subsidiarity cannot be used to bring the
 Commission to book by challenging its right of initiative and in this way altering the balance established by the Treaties"
And an EU summit communiqu? stated:

"The application of the principle (subsidiarity) shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty including maintaining in full the acquis communautaire and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty.... according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."

This is of course critical to any attempt to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the EU since what Mr Cameron seems to want is a large grant of "subsidarity". But without removing the underlying acquis communautaire any agreement would be at best a permanent source of future conflict or completely pointless.


 The EU and its "Court" sees social policy as part of economic and trade policy and the Lisbon Treaty (at the request of the French) relegated free trade to just one of the aims of the EU and even then one which can be compromised by other areas such as social and industrial policy.In the light of this there is little prospect of opting out of social obligations and the power of the European Court to rule on and the European Commission to make law in the social fields already subject (as most are) to the acquis communautaire.

The EU concept of a "Single Market" is entirely different from and alien to the British concept of free trade and competitive industry which is why concessions on social and economic regulations and laws are unlikely. The whole purpose of the "Single" Market and its ludicrous "free movement of citizens" is to form a single State. Free markets allow nations to trade without forcing their populaions to migrate - but that is precisely what the Eurofederalists wanted - migration and the break up of the economies and homogeneity of the nation states. If Mr Cameron cannot even stop the invasion of the shores of his own country by (up to) 26 million EU unemployed then his "renegotiation" will be a complete waste of time.

As Lord Stoddart reminded us at a House of Commons meeting on 18th January 2012: prior to the 1975 Referendum on EEC membership the then Labour Government (in which he was a Minister) was assured in their "re-negotiations" that "economic and monetary union would not happen". So much for EU assurances on national powers!

The requests for the repatriation of powers here as elsewhere can at best only be planned in anticipation of their failure and as a stepping stone to forcing the issue of finally asserting democratic British sovereignty and joining a (completely reformed and enhanced) European Economic Area where virtually ALL outstanding problems would not apply. The EEA with Britain (supported by World Trade organization rules) will be a very powerful unit able to negotiate far superior terms than the present EEA - not least because many non Euro members of the EU might well join such a grouping of free nations.(Finland, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic for example) This has already occurred to the EU which is why they are at present putting extreme (and disgraceful) pressure on Norway and Switzerland.


There is only one answer for a people who wish to live in a democratic sovereign nation state (like 85% of the other countries of the world) trading freely and co-operating on friendly terms with other democratic nations - and that is the re-assertion of their right (under the UN Charter) as a sovereign nation state. A straight forward Bill put before Parliament confirming all the aspects and rights of such a State will achieve that status. Such a movement exists in Britain. It is called the British Declaration of Independence and it is garnering much support from parliamentarians and people alike.
Other EU member States, bankrupted by its currency, emasculated by its treaties and crushed by its over-weaning power will I am sure one day use a similar exit and will come together in freedom and sovereignty according to the principles of democratic sovereignty so clearly set out in the United Nations Charter.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk