There is NO repatriation of powers

How many times does it take?

OK, let’s go back to the Tory Conference of 2009 and Roger Helmer MEP:

The EU works on the principle of occupied ground, promising to return powers under the principle of subsidiarity but in effect, never returning them once subsumed.

So it’s not as if it is not known. Either people telling the inexactitude that repatriation of powers is possible under the treaty are bereft of knowledge of how the EU works or else they are deliberately telling porkies.


But, in raising the alarm here, the newspaper – in common with virtually every other commentator – is missing the greater danger, ushered in by the same treaty. The danger is “hidden in plain sight” but has been consistently and willfully ignored – and continues to be, to this day.

That danger was highlighted by us in several posts, most notably here and here, identifying the underlying agenda of the “project”, which is to create a supreme government of Europe.

But, as we pointed out – nay screamed out – in our earlier posts, the most fundamental change in the constitutional Lisbon treaty is to absorb the European Council into the structural institutional maw of the EU, making it formally an EU institution, bound under treaty law to further the objectives of the EU and subject to EU law.

Since the membership of the European Council comprises the heads of state of governments of the member states, this means necessarily that our prime minister becomes a servant of the European Union, bound by the treaty to promote its objectives, and subject to its law. He will no longer represent us in the European Union but, as part of the supreme government of Europe, is one of 27 who will determine the policies of the EU for individual vassal states to implement.

Thus, as we have remarked many times, come the next general election, we will not be electing MPs, with the wining party then go on to form our government. We will we choosing an electoral college which will then go on to choose the person it wishes to send to Brussels, not as our representative but as one of the 27 who will take part in the supreme government of Europe.

It’s known it would be unpopular if people knew of it so it had to be converted to porkies and delivered that way, according to the FCO:

From 13th Spitfire’s sidebar,:

1971 FCO 30/104

“The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes… and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential… there would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.”

Strengthened local and regional democratic processes – regional assemblies, citizens’ juries and the like, under the auspices of the compliance arm, Common Purpose, funded by national government.

The regulatory zeal of the European Union compounds the problem enormously with the number of legal acts in force in the EU rising from about 10,000 a decade ago to not far short of 30,000 today – Mark Littlewood – and as we know, EU regulations become UK law by default, mostly without reference to our parliament, although some are introduced via SI’s where existing UK law needs to be amended to accommodate the new EU regulations.

There is NO provision for repatriation of powers.

IPJ says:

As the Lisbon Treaty as subsumed allows for self amendment, there will be no more treaties of this kind, only International Agreements that will now be negotiated and sealed by the EU, and former treaties that will be adopted and form part of the TEU and TFEU, an example of which can be found here.

All other law, in the parlance of the EU, is called Secondary Legislation, and it is derived in the following ways, and I outline the three most important elements of secondary legislation, Regulations, Directives and Decisions. (and I take this from the EUR-LEX database direct).

1.3.1. Introduction

The ‘secondary legislation’ is the third major source of Community law after the treaties (primary legislation) and international agreements. It can be defined as the totality of the legislative instruments adopted by the European institutions pursuant to the provisions of the treaties. Secondary legislation comprises the binding legal instruments (regulations, directives and decisions) and non-binding instruments (resolutions, opinions) provided for in the EC Treaty, together with a whole series of other instruments such as the institutions’ internal regulations and Community action programmes.

1.3.2. Regulation

Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a regulation is a general measure that is binding in all its parts. Unlike directives, which are addressed to the Member States, and decisions, which are for specified recipients, regulations are addressed to everyone.

A regulation is directly applicable, which means that it creates law which takes immediate effect in all the Member States in the same way as a national instrument, without any further action on the part of the national authorities.

1.3.3. Directive

Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a directive is addressed to the Member States. Its main purpose is to align national legislation.

A directive is binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved but leaves them the choice of the form and method they adopt to realise the Community objectives within the framework of their internal legal order.

If a directive has not been transposed into national legislation in a Member State, if it has been transposed incompletely or if there is a delay in transposing it, citizens can directly invoke the directive in question before the national courts.

1.3.4. Decision

Adopted either by the Council, by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission, a decision is the instrument by which the Community institutions give a ruling on a particular matter. By means of a decision, the institutions can require a Member State or a citizen of the Union to take or refrain from taking a particular action, or confer rights or impose obligations on a Member State or a citizen.

A decision is:

– an individual measure, and the persons to whom it is addressed must be specified individually, which distinguishes a decision from a regulation,
– binding in its entirety.

# Delegated acts

Statewatch examined the methodology of “delegated acts” which allow the changes to laws without due process:

article 290

… and so on. This is referred to again further down.

# Commission recommendation

The EU way of making policy, whether constitutional or not, often uses Commission Recommendation. They set up a committee with a shelf life, let’s take security as an example and [thanks Witterings and IPJ]:

To make it easy for the domestic politicians to lie to you, to tell you that the EU doesn’t run policy, what happens is this:

  • ESRIF delivered its final recommendations in autumn of 2009 and the Final Report was published in December 2009.
  • As stated in its mandate, ESRIF will expire at the end of 2009.

Here today, job done, gone tomorrow. Within the European Commission structure there are several hundreds of these groups, (creating policy that is then translated firstly into Commission opinion, a rubber stamp vote through the EP, then into national law and sold locally to the public by domestic politicians as their own Party policy), groups that vanish as quickly as they came about.

So, with that mechanism of setting up committees with expiry dates, they are able to implement something like this:

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – Article 2.4: The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the framing of a common defence policy.

How many people know of the existence of the Military Committee of the European Union (EUMC) which was set up under Council Decision 2001/79/CSFP and amongst whose functions is included: the overall concept of crisis management in its military aspects; military aspects relating to political control and to the strategic direction of operations; the risk assessment of potential crises; the military dimension and implications of a crisis situation; the elaboration, assessment and review of objectives and the financial estimation for operations and exercises.

The government over here adopts the recommendations, the committee over there expires and what is left over here is sold as “national” policy when it was nothing of the kind, nor can the policy be revoked because the committee which implemented it is now defunct and there is no mechanism for altering or revoking it.


Statutory Instruments delegate authority to ministers to amend or supplement Acts of Parliament, and to present them to parliament where technically it is possible to challenge that delegated authority, but in a place where few MP’s bother to read primary legislation before voting you can be assured that even fewer bother to read SIs as they are presented. In general SIs are passed in bulk on a show of hands by the minimum number of MPs required to be present in the chamber.

So far 343 such Statutory Instruments have been presented to Parliament in 2010, and whilst most are merely small administrative matters or corrections to primary legislation, many have huge and far reaching consequences, but to my knowledge none have so far been challenged this year.

In a communication from the European Commission Implementation of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (COM 673/09). In its 15 pages it states:

“The scope of Article 290 cannot be determined simply by examining in detail the terms used by the authors of the new Treaty to define delegated acts; the provision also needs to be put into context, by looking in particular at its historical connection with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny and at its links with Article 291 on implementing acts. For it is around Articles 290 and 291 that the legal framework will have to be constructed to replace the comitology system established under the Treaty establishing the European Community.”

There is NO mechanism for repatriation of powers. There is lip service in places in principle but these are swamped by the regulatory mechanisms which are all one way. Subsidiarity is an utter myth, as you can see.

There is NO mechanism for repatriation of powers. There is only provision for the national parliament to unilaterally withdraw but the issue in that, in International Law, is that our governments have now waved through so many EU provisions that precedent has been set and that gets to the legal side – this post is already too long.

6 comments for “There is NO repatriation of powers

  1. john in cheshire
    May 13, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    James, I wonder if it’s coincidental that EU policy and that of islam are similar in that they both believe that once they ‘own’ something, then it’s theirs forever. Maybe that’s why socialists think so highly of muslims; they both have similar delusions.

  2. Viscount Rectum
    May 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    It is so simple, membership of the EU is a VIOLATION of our SOVEREIGNTY, a million person march should be organised.

  3. Junican
    May 13, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    One cannot help but feel that the end is not too far off. How will it end? Hard to say, but it is not unlikely that it will come from non-compliance.
    The structure of the EU is so vast and so complex that hardly anyone knows what’s what. We have already seen judgements on this and that take years to resolve. One or two people, like Quatada, have used this to their advantage, but for most of us, it is a millstone around our necks. It is only a matter of time before we find a Government which says, “Sod this for a game of soldiers” and simply stops enforcing EU rules and regulations. That is the simple way. A case in point is the guy who found a way to burn waste cardboard cleanly and efficiently to produce energy. He jumped through all the regulatory hoops and received permission to go ahead. Only after he had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds did the ‘authorities’ discover that the EU regarded cardboard as ‘waste’, which could only be recycled and could not be burned (even if that recycling involved burning!). Now, let us suppose that our government minister had said, “Sod that – go ahead, Mr X”.
    And let the arguments commence…………

  4. May 14, 2013 at 5:47 am

    I’ve heard supposedly intelligent people actually think the EU does something for us and they like to be in there mainly for the unfettered travel and to be “nice” to our neighbours. As unfettered travel is coming to an end anyway through tightened immigration in advanced member countries and the Euro is in trouble, then all that is left is EU regulation and control. There’s certainly no economic argument for remaining in.

    I’m hoping and many are, that some incident will occur to wake the British up, there’s the pretext, as said above and out we go, not even needing a referendum.

  5. Greg Tingey
    May 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    It is very rare for me to agree with C Booker, but …
    He has also pointed out that the only way to get a renegotiation is via “Article 50” – which involves leaving the EU.

Comments are closed.