The Tories failed to curb power of EU Court in 1996- No better chance in 2005
We are only a few months from a General Election in May 2005 and it is almost a certainty that Michael Howard will promise to claw back from the European Court of Justice their right of jurisdiction in amendment of the 1972 European Communities Act or make other promises which will prove to be fruitless as in the past. In the Respected journal Freedom Today (www.tfa.net ) an article appeared in June
1996 which include an edited version of Iain Duncan Smith MPs recent
23rd April [All patriots know what that day means to a True
Englishman] - speech introducing his ten Minute Rule Bill to clip the wings
of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It attracted the support of
77 Tory MP’s. [Knowing how easily Tony Blair was able to sign the New European Constitution in Rome in 2005 it would be hard to believe that there are such a number of Eurosceptic Conservative MP’s in existence but we call on them to put Country before Party and join the UKIP before the election in May 2005, because some of them will certainly lose their seats.] * The Bill I present to the House today I believe a simple one. It would amend the European Communities Act 1972 for the purpose of disapplying rules and doctrines of the European of Justice (ECJ) by the mechanism of an Order in Council which had been approved by the House in draft form first. I drafted the Bill over a month ago, and at the time I raised it we were on the receiving end of a bizarre ECJ decision on Spanish fishermen, but since then we have seen the European Court overthrow our painstaking negotiated opt- out from the Social Chapter. The terrible European Union ban on British beef, which is tearing an excellent industry apart, sadly will not be affected by this Act. A Political Court Yet despite the way the European Court affects British citizens, too few understand its ethos, for the European Court is a political court which sees its role as the architect of full European integration. Its rulings have far reaching implications, now enabling British courts to overturn Acts of Parliament on such issues as part-time workers’ rights. In
making its judgments, the European Court often interprets the intentions of
national governments, which signed the relevant European treaties [Mainly by Conservative Governments and
many of their MPs in collusion with Labour when in office.] This
gives the Court huge licence to make legislation, which national governments
must obey. In so doing, it has changed
general statements on sex equality or health and safety at work into very
powerful doctrines, and extended the power of the European Union’s
institutions. We are therefore witnessing a process of judge-made law,
which goes far beyond the traditional scope of British courts, and cut
across the vital concept that law-makers should be fully accountable to their
electorate. [Well!
Mr Duncan-Smith why don’t you ask your Tory grand traitor Edward Heath why he
got you in such a fine mess and which your present leader Michael Howard in
2005 has no comment?] To continue- Furthermore, once it makes such a ruling, it has
been decreed by the Court *that the relevant power is forever lost to
national government - the insidious doctrine of the *-acquis
communautaire. The European Court’s recent fishing decision provides an excellent example of how my Bill will operate. In this case the ECJ not only overturned a British Act of Parliament, the Merchant Shipping Act, but has gone further, because in a recent European case-Frankovitch-the Court created a new doctrine that national governments could be liable for damages, and applied this in the case involving the Spanish fishermen. [Why Duncan -Smith appears so surprised by events when Edward Heath could have put him the picture years ago in fact in 1972 possibly earlier.] Yet this is not something that had been agreed
between EU member governments or was written in the Treaty. The Court had simply decided it was
“inherent in the scheme of the Treaty” [Isn’t that right Mr Heath?] and as a result the British Government may have to £30 million of
taxpayers’ money in compensation. [It is naïve of politicians to have expected that the ECJ would not have introduced its own un-English brand of Equity-if you join the Club then you must obey the rules-ask Edward Heath and Tony Blair and Kenneth Clarke and Paddy Ashdown and all the other traitors to their country.] This
adds an additional element to the Common Fisheries Policy, which now allows the
Spanish to take a huge proportion of our fish quota, resulting in the demise of
a once great British fishing industry [Which Edward Heath a fellow Conservative threw away when negotiating the entry into the supposed EEC those many years ago -Ask him Mr Smith -he will tell you if you don’t already know?]
What is ironic is that many of our European partners whose implementations of these ECJ judgments is way below ours, have constitutional court mechanisms, whereas we in Britain have no such mechanism. It is therefore high time that this Parliament, which is meant to be the guardian of our Constitution, was able to review European Court judgments and if necessary seek to get them changed politically. [Our Parliament the once guardian of our Constitution
gave away our Constitutional Rights when they passed the 1972 European
Communities ACT- the only way to get change is to leave the EU-there is no
other viable solution.] The Government has determined to get the ECJ’s fisheries decision changed (1996) at the Inter-Governmental Conference, although I understand we have not yet tabled any proposals. However, I expect the Government will do so very soon. [Well
-there is a General Election in 1997 isn’t there-we know we where there because
we no longer trusted the Tories to get us out of Europe.] Yet in the meantime, we cannot stop British courts settling
claims brought by quota-hopping Spanish fishermen [Here again-the only person to blame is Edward Heath
-maybe he will make some recompense to the taxpayer.] Thus when the Government succeeds -as succeed they must- in getting the judgment
overturned,
[They Didn’t] taxpayer’s money will have been paid out unnecessarily, not to mention the cost
of the Court’s time. [What over confidence-once again underestimating the
Brussels machine] Parliament should therefore act now to stop the cases going through the British courts, by giving itself the power to review not only the ECJ’s fishing judgment but also other judgments and decide in each case on the course of action. A Bill like the one I am introducing (1998) should pass through swiftly without opposition, for if any party opposed it they would have to explain to the great British public why they preferred to have taxpayers money spent on ridiculous projects-to which the British never agreed-rather than defend their interests. Furthermore,
the Constitutional Court in Germany, for example, reviews European Court
Judgments. It has even confirmed the
German Bundestag’s authority to decide whether or not they abolish the
Deutschmark and whether they join a single currency at the turn of the
century. This would breach European law for Germany does not have a British
style opt-out on monetary union in the Maastricht Treaty. Yet there was not a murmur of comment when
they did this. And they are not alone,
because the French under article 55 of their Constitution, have similar powers,
as have other EU member countries. In
fact these Constitutional Courts almost universally have made it clear that in
any clashes between European law and their own Constitution, it is their
Constitution, which prevails. The
British people have a right to ask why should we at least not choose to
exercise similar powers of revision. Yet there is one thing this Bill would do which seems to have created concern amongst some, particularly the judiciary: It is that I am proposing to amend the 1972 European Communities Act. Although
they will not say it publicly, some would have us believe that we as a
Parliament cannot amend this Act at all and that we may only repeal the 1972 Act
[Great! -Do-it] unless it has
agreed this with other members of the European Community. The
argument they use is that we sacrificed these sovereign powers when we signed
the Act confirmed in the referendum. Yet
our Rt. Hon Friend for Bexley and Sidcup, Sir Edward Heath made it clear at the
time there was no question of handing over Parliament’ sovereign powers, and I
prefer to be guided, as were the British people, by that statement. [Fool you!] [What a silly -Billy he is after
there has been so much information in the public domain to remind everyone how
deceitful were and are Politicians in withholding vital TRUTHS from the People] But
at the heart of this objection lies a serious misunderstanding of what it was
that we actually agreed to do back in 1972, for nothing in the Treaties we
signed defined the way in which Britain should deal with its relationship with
European law and court judgments. For
it is the European Court which has created new doctrines not primarily agreed
in any of the Treaties and it is by such a process that the power of the
central EU institutions has been enhanced.
For example: The Doctrine Those
individuals may invoke European Community ‘Directives’ before national courts-made in Van Duyn
case Those
national courts cannot question the validity of Community instructions such as ‘Directives’- made during the Fotofrost case. That
Community law had direct effect and created individual rights-made in
the Van Gend En Loos case. And
most remarkably that the European Commission, when creating a ‘Directive’ must
always choose an article covered by qualified majority vote (QMV) because that
takes precedence over any other article-made in the Titanium Dioxide case. This is not the Rule of law as understood in Britain, where laws have been made and crafted by Parliament, scrutinised line by line, opposed throughout by an official opposition and then handed to the judiciary for application. At stake, therefore, is the great question of whether Parliament should remain sovereign because it has been entrusted by the British [people] with their rights and freedoms, or whether we are content that they should be handed over to Brussels bit by bit as the European Court rules. This Bill is an opportunity for us to restate our belief in the sovereign rights of the British people. Freedom today, June 1996. * [Fonts
altered-bolding and underlining used-comment in brackets.] [We
believe that it will be a long time -if ever -that the British people rely on
any promise of the Conservative Party in the years ahead. Their only way forward would be to change
their Party name, which has been dishonoured since Edward Heath signed the 1972
European Communities Act and the successive new Treaties passed by the Party or
supported by them since that time. [The reason in showing to you the plan of Iain Duncan-Smith’s abortive attempt in 1996 to curb the power of the European Court is so that when the people hear the promises of Tony Blair or Michael Howard of their intention to claw back power from the European Court of Justice you will have seen the difficulties which lay in the way. One can tell that the EU is getting nervous when the
new President Mr Barroso exclaims the virtues of the British system and some
changes he is hoping to get implemented in the future-less Directives- with
only a few months from our General Election in May 2005] All we will say is that many voters were fooled in
1972 & 1975 and by successive governments since and there can be no mistake
in 2005. Don’t Let Them Fool You Again? [True Independent Facts about the EU can be obtained
from Independent and Government sources - don’t take our word -find the facts
this time round-many web-sites listed in a number of essays on our Bulletin
Board - but in the end you have to ask yourself do you wish to be governed by strangers
or by your own historic Parliament accountable to the People not to Brussels]
FEB/05
* * * *
*
*
The abolition of Britain * Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a REFERENDUM HEAR HIM ON http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o * * 13th October,2007
*
*
The abolition of Britain *
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
* *
*
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? * 67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM * FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE * July 18-2007 ALSO JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/
The Petition reads as follows: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature." Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008 Eurofacts 27th July 2007. * 'The Spirit of England' by In London on St.George's Day -1953 *
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
* [All underlined words have a separate bulletin] [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
*
VOTE MAY -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
