Just reviewing Richard North’s Flexcit for a moment:
… and then at the legal opinion [via IPJ here] on our inability to alter the Ts&Cs of the ECHR, as Chris Grayling is proposing,
… then it is clear that it is so worded, in both cases, such that it is well nigh impossible to leave, except under terms highly disadvantageous to the UK – as far as the EU, the CofEur and the ECHR see it.
My case is – why should we see it that way? Perhaps it was those years in Russia but I see it more in terms of a wrecker’s ball and our own piecemeal body of law preceding the EEC. We give it a name Reset, we simply leave.
Objections and replies to those:
1. Dr. North is representative of an opinion whereby we go cap in hand to the very bodies who would keep us in – yes even those behind EFTA – it is a club – and of course, their ‘legality’ is highly weighted towards their legal experts’ opinion. But my contention is that they are themselves acting illegally, in terms of UK law:
2. There is, however, a far more efficacious way and that is when a national parliament makes laws pertaining to itself. Clearly that is irresponsible in the eyes of someone as legalistic as the good and responsible Dr. North but it does not accord with how history records nations as having acted.
And nations have survived by proactive moves, based on precedent and backed by subsequent legislation, placing the detractors, e.g. the bodies mentioned above, in a position whereby they must make all the legal moves to extra-national courts and the proactive nation can then hear their submissions and accept or dismiss them.
This is not unlike various bodies excommunicating one another – but none of it alters the political will [see Henry VIII].
3. I’m suggesting the reason we can’t do this at this time is not the legalese at all – there is conflicting legal opinion on these matters [some earlier posts on the EU] – but collusion by the politicians at the top.
That is, our politicians, from Wilson and Heath onwards, have colluded in denying the national parliament the final arbitrary say on UK matters and this, in terms of previous legal opinion – precedent – is illegal in UK terms.
Here’s an example from 2010. At Team Europe, they point out, as of November 1st:
From midnight last night, the European Commission became illegal
As of midnight last night, the terms of 26 European Commissioners expired. Of the 27-strong college, only one, President José Manuel Durão Barroso, has been reappointed. The others, on any conceivable reading of the rules, are now occupying their posts illicitly.
Why is the EU, yet again, disregarding its own rules of procedure? Because the composition of the Commission would be altered by the European Constitution (a.k.a. Lisbon Treaty), and Eurocrats were reluctant to go through an appointments procedure under the existing rules.
Virtually any EU illegality can be used as the pretext for our action, if only there is the political will. here is a legal opinion from Jailhouse Lawyer, from November 20, 2009, negating the standing of 1688:
It is a well established principle of English law that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments.
Therefore, to claim that the 1688 Declaration of Rights makes the European Communities Act 1972, etc, unlawful is pure hogwash!
In February the European Court of Human Rights is to be reformed to allow the Council of Europe to grant the Committee of Ministers extra powers to control rogue states like the UK.
According to that argument then, a subsequent UK parliament which, say, pushed the current ECHR opt-out, has every right to negate anything formerly adopted, e.g. EU law. It is hogwash to say that our parliament cannot unilaterally move on matters pertaining to the UK.
Plus political will creates precedent.
I’m suggesting that even though this is all well and fine on the surface:
… the P24 is bunkum, namely:
A Member State wishing to withdraw from the EU must inform the European Council of its intention; the Council is to produce guidelines on the basis of which a withdrawal agreement is to be negotiated …
Utter bunkum. That is the EU’s rules, not the UK’s and as JHL pointed out, no previous parliament can bind a future one. We politely inform them – that’s all it takes and all it’s ever, in political reality, taken. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.
If the Queen’s own collusion in this can be kept out of it, no matter how that sticks in the craw of many, then the path is then considerably smoothed as one is not taking on the royal houses of Europe, only the henchmen.
4. Another reason there is not the will to change via this route is because those henchmen are well aware that a consequence will be national legal charges brought against those perpetrating this. And as the MSM is subject to D notices, as you saw at Guido’s the other day and I wrote a satirical post on subsequently, and as the MSM is controlled, as Leveson demonstrated, then the British public will only get the slant those in control wish.
And those in control are pro-EU. Therefore, there needs to be a test case, e.g. on prisoner’s votes, on the ECHR or whatever, whereby oure ‘leadership’ goes it alone, something it simply will not do.
Unless pushed. And look at Cameron’s change of stance of late. What caused it – public opinion … or fear of Eurosceptics in his party defecting?
5. Dr. North [not specifically that worthy gent but the class of responsible politicos who know their law] are getting tied up in something they have no need to be tied up in and both Yeltsin and Putin demonstrated this.
Namely, that the proactive government, legislating on things pertaining to its internal affairs, is almost never subject to effective constraint, unless the political leadership are quislings and wish it to be so. We are talking realpolitik here.
Naturally, opinion would be divided even among the populace, and there is a very British compliance with anything portrayed as ‘by the book’ and ‘above board’. Richard North’s proposal is very much in that vein – a fine course out, as long as one recognizes the binding power of current EU treaty and legislation. It is always subject to this, never independent of it.
6. What frightens the proverbial about Nigel is that he appears to be both unaware of the ‘proper’ roadmap required and yet has the political will and popularity to start this process of unilateral withdrawal through test cases and actually being chucked out on our backsides.
This militates against the national political consciousness and that is precisely what the EU, with it’s large British component of quislings vocal at the helm, is banking on. The one thing they do not need is a maverick going for the unilateral and various lawyers, e.g. those for the Tories and Grayling, falling in behind in orderly ranks.
It’s the fear of the orderly and legal appearance of this maverick move which frightens more than the move itself. If the public perceive it as madcap – and the leftist half most certainly will, manipulated by the MSM – then bodies such as the UN and their subdivision the EU, along with the European continental based PTB, e.g. the powers behind Merkel, rest far easier.
The opinion contained within this post, even the use of the word ‘maverick’, is the way they must have the proposal portrayed, whereas it must be obvious to any student of politics that there is a set of laws and precedents before our EEC membership, along with the legal opinion of what the Yes vote in the last referendum on the matter actually conveyed to the British yes voters’ minds, that allows for a most orderly withdrawal, nothing madcap whatever in it.
‘Madcap’, in this sense, only means that which is the opposite of the political paradigm you wish to see in place. In realpolitik, the issue is political will, not legalese. And to those who say this is the making of a dictator:
a. Do we not have a dictator at this very moment [see vacuum cleaners and hairdryers]?
b. Would such political process not be according to former UK law, preceding the EEC?
Further, the fiction that nations would not trade with our firms is so much codswallop. Look at the sanctioned Russia at this very time. Firms such as Procter and Gambel are still trading with Russia, even amid the rhetoric. I know this is so because I was a consultant to a trade minister and saw this in action, I was translating and proofreading the documents.
7. So I’m sorry – the words ‘can’t be done’ or ‘that’s not the way it works’ are a cop out. By all means go the flexcit route if it makes us feel better but I suggest that what must precede any of this is a test case and that could be anything – why not the ill-thought-out Grayling proposals?
They think it is a way to keep us in and ‘claw back powers’. LOL. I can drive a bus through the holes as much as you could but in terms of realpolitik, it is the pretext required to stick to the guns and actually be thrown out. You know and I know that that would not happen, as the whole house of cards then comes down.
Again – the test case, the heavy-handed ECHR response, the galvanizing of public opinion over here as Dave who is torn between his masters and the vision of being the Great Man Who Took Us Out, sees his political survival in this, the chance to cutout Farage and Co for once and for all and then the City and corporate Britain fall in behind. It won’t be Nigel – it will be Dave, forced by Nigel and seeing off Theresa May in the process.
2014/2015 is when all this is going to take place. Hang on for the ride.