EVERYTHING THE EU WANTS - BUT NO FURTHER
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 06:27PM DAVID CAMERON has - oh so predictably - given patriots, national sovereignty, the British Constitution and the Rule of Law the finger. In so doing he reveals his logic and constitutional knowledge to be as deep as his determination to live up to his cast-iron guarantees. Says this metropolitan sophisticate (my emph.):
We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key - a commitment very similar to that in Ireland. This is a major constitutional development.
But I believe it is now the only way to reassure the British people that powers cannot be given away without their explicit approval in a referendum. It is not politicians' power to give away - it belongs to the people.
Absolutely fine so far chum (we'll pass over that our useless Queen is the repository of our sovereignty and cannot give it away, even on the advice of her subordinate ministers). However, if our sovereignty today cannot be given away by politicians, they had no lawful right or authority to give it away under the European Communities Act 1972, did they?
Therefore the ECA is illegitimate and unlawful and must be struck down - mustn't it, Our Dave?
What a pickle these duckers and divers get themselves into. As for his 'constitutional lock', we have such a device already; it's perfectly good, served us well until Parliament became despotic a century ago and is contained within the Bill of Rights 1689:
And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.
I'm afraid that not for the first time Our Dave is talking through his hat. He cannot offer a 'constitutional lock' because such a thing is not in Parliament's gift. The Bill of Rights is a solemn compact between Monarch and Subject and, constitutionally, that is the only relationship that matters.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (11)
'a commitment very similar to that in Ireland."
What's that? - a promise to keep on voting until it goes the way they want!
Too late Dave, the horse has bolted, and all your honeyed words will matter not a jot!
It's a meaningless promise from an unprincipled opportunist. Too late - the horse has indeed bolted and all Dave is promising is a new bolt.
The next u-turn will be the new Heathrow runway. Having sworn to stop it, Cameron will find a loophole to enable him to surrender to the powerful corporate cartel behind this monstrosity.
But only after he's won the election.
"However, if our sovereignty today cannot be given away by politicians, they had no lawful right or authority to give it away under the European Communities Act 1972, did they?"
No. Soverignty hasn't been given away. The European Communities Act is an act of Parliament. Simply put Soverignty still lies with Parliament. If the UK Parliament repeal the European Communities Act then all those powers, all that "soverignty" reverts back to Westminster. It goes to say that Parliament (and for the raving lunatic that is Pete Moore, the Queen through her assent) retains ultimate Soverignty. Every decision made by the EU is given its endorsement by Parliament by the 1972 Act. Parliament can remove that endorsement if it so wishes thus Soverignty remains in Parliament's hands.
Maybe, Pete, you should learn about the true reality of the British Constitution before you continue to harp on about.
Also, a referendum, under the British Constitution, isn't legally binding. The Scottish Parliament exists not because of the 1997 referendum but because of the Scotland Act, 1998. Parliament reigns supreme and no other body, even the people, can over turn that.
Seamus -
Of course Parliament is not sovereign, how can it be?
When the Sovereign (that's 'the Sovereign') dissolves Parliament, where does sovereignty go? If Parliament is sovereign, then soverignty would be dissolved too, but of course it isn't because Monarch is sovereign, in accordance with our law.
Look at the front page of any Statute. It reads: Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons ....
It be enacted because the Sovereign is sovereign and only the Sovereign has the sovereign power to enact it.
Who opens Parliament? The Monarch does and in so doing confers legitimacy as an assembly via the Crown in Parliament. What on earth do you understand by the Crown in Parliament?
Seamus, no-one vows any oath of allegiance in this Kingdom to Parliament because Parliament is merely an advisory chamber to the Monarch. The Monarch - the Head of Government and Governor of the Nation - is the repository of the sovereignty of the people. What is the Cabinet? Merely a sub-committee of the Privy Council, the Monarch's chief advisory council.
We live today under a wholly illegitimate and unlawful Parliamentray tyranny which is as disdainful of the British Constitution as Congress is of theirs over there.
Do you want links on this? Seriously, I'll happily send you off to further reading if you like.
Yes Pete, but, as we step into the 21st century, or even the 20th, or even 19th, or even the 18th (you get the point), the picture becomes less clear. The Queen can't scratch her ass without Parliament's say so. She has no de facto power. She, in all but theory, can't refuse assent. She is bound by the Constitution in the form of convention. If Parliament was to grow a set of balls and repeal the 1972 Act tomorrow then the EU could do nothing to stop them. If the Queen was to refuse assent tomorrow then she wouldn't be Queen on Friday.
Seamus -
The picture is as clear as ever; the Law is the Law, the British Constitution is the British Constitution and neither cease to exist because they are ignored. The Queen has awesome powerswhich she chooses to neglect. "Convention" is no constitution, it is a posh word for "habit" and convention has no standing in Law.
You have a late-20th Century view which severely colours your opinion. I speak of Law, Constitution and fact.
Pete, the UK doesn't have a codified Constitution so the Constitution is drawn from a great many sources, including Common Law, including Acts of Parliament, other documents and, quite frankly, convention.
"You have a late-20th Century view which severely colours your opinion."
And you have an early 17th century view that severely colours yours.
To be sure, it's late 17th and early 18th Century.
I am puzzled but I have no doubt that the Constitutional experts of this blog can help. As I understand it, the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution had to receive ratification by all 27 members of the EU. One country, because of its constitution, held a referendum on the Treaty and voted No. It was a properely run referendum and resulted in a clear answer. At this point should not the Treaty have fallen? I know that Ireland was leaned upon to vote again on the same Treaty but is that really legal? - a result had been obtained.
Another puzzlement is why are we so frightened of the EU. They must be concerned that we might leave and such action may bring the whole corrupt edifice down. We know that there are many people in the other states who also do not approve of the machinations that they have observed. Could it be that the High Ups have more cause to be frightened of us? The Lisbon Treaty and all the dirty work surrounding obtaining an undemocratic ratification should teach us a lesson and we should be ashamed to be part of the EU experiment
Peter, the Republic didn't hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It held a referendum on the 28th Amendment to the Bunreacht na hÉireann. Thus when it was returned No it could be argued, on a purely constitutional basis, that the people of Ireland didn't reject the Treaty but in fact rejected the 28th Amendment.