Opposing the EU Bill

denis cooper

Of course the "parliamentary sovereignty" aspect and the "referendum lock" aspect should be treated separately and should in fact be in two separate Bills. While Part 2, the "let three surplus German MEPs keep their seats legally rather than illegally as at present" aspect, should be in a third separate Bill.

denis cooper

Martin Howe QC has explained the position in this pamphlet, which is well worth reading:

http://www.politeia.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/Safeguarding%20Sovereignty.pdf

Unfortunately while the current generation of judges continue to acknowledge the sovereignty of Parliament, the problem is that Parliament itself has created the conditions for what Howe describes as "judicial drift" on that doctrine.

Rescomania

Common Law is superior to Statue Law (Acts of Parliament) and must always remain so. Any acts passed by Parliament in contravention of Commom Law are unlawful.

Thus the signing of all EU treaties are unlawful.

Parliament was built with the 3 estates mutally agreeing our governance. The unlawful Acts regarding the monarchy and the house of lords (1911 and 1999 respectively) have removed all checks and balances from Parliament and removed its legitimacy to govern on our behalf. Never has the concept of 'elective dictatorship' been more real.

Parliament was (and should be) sovereign subject to framework of Common Law and only with Lords holding patents and with an active Monarch. That was the deal that we made to prevent one party or group becomming too powerful.

Rescomania

Denis - p4, final paragraph of the link:

"Secondly, it cannot be denied that Parliament possesses the legal power to transfer its own sovereignty to another body or bodies. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is itself the product the Act of Union with Scotland of 1707 and of the later Act of Union with Ireland. The 1707 Act meant that two previously sovereign and independent Parliaments, the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland, ceased to exist and transferred their sovereignty to a new Parliament of the United Kingdom. It follows that the Parliament of the United Kingdom must likewise possess the legal power to transfer its sovereignty to the legislature or constitutional organs of a greater entity, if it were to choose to do so."

Nonsense - one doesn't lead to the other. Our Common Law constitution explicitly forbids us to transfer such powers to foreign bodies. The best that the EU could lawfully do is have the ability to present statute laws to our Parliament for us to consider passing or not.

TrevorsDen

If parliament is sovereign and parliament rules parliament - why is there a separate body which rules on MPs expenses.

What are various MPs in jail for abusing that sovereignty?
Surely the people are sovereign?

But anyway - the govt put up a law saying parliament is sovereign over the EU and still the loony toon right are not satisfied.
Are Labour going to vote against it? Why? Why should any party not want to see parliament sovereign

Rescomania

Denis - thanks for the link. I posted regarding a section of it but I have a dodgy internet link and lost it (I think - we'll see if it appears).

The document was full of inaccuracies and it's position on our constitution and the supremacy of Parliament are just wrong.

denis cooper

No, statute law always takes priority.

Rescomania

Denis - you're simply wrong. Statue Law requires your consent (which is presumed as given). Common Law is universal.

brooks

Rescomania

I am happy to withdraw my consent to the Theft Act and override the implied presumption you mention. But before I go out to nick a car can you tell me what qualifications you have to give these opinions?

denis cooper

Rescomania

"Our Common Law constitution explicitly forbids us to transfer such powers to foreign bodies".

Where is this "Common Law constitution", so that I can read that explicit prohibition?

Boudicca

The Government's position is "The government claims that Clause 18 confirms that EU law “is only recognised by virtue of the authority of acts of Parliament”,
-------------

What that fails to acknowledge is that the original Act of Parliament when we joined the European Economic Community, was sanctioned by a Referendum. This was a Commen Market area and the electorate were assured that there would be no loss of Sovereignty.

Since then, successive Treaties have been passed by various Governments, which have turned the Common Market into a full-blown political union without any further permission from the British people by way of another Referendum.

Our political elite KNOW the British people don't want this yet they ignore it.

There should be NO Sovereignty Bill and NO Referendum Lock because that is accepting the status quo. What there SHOUL be is an IN/OUT Referendum on the EU because that is what the British people make very clear is what they want.

John Goode

I think the explanatory note was trying to very badly reflect (going back a few decades) the Factortame 2 decision on Spanish Fishing vessals reflagged for fishing quoto purposes as "British Vessals". ritain lost the argument but in it I believe the Law Lords reaffirmed Parliamentary Supremacy but affirmed that unless the ECA 1972 was expressly repealed or ammended then Parliment's "intention" was to allow EU Supremacy at least for the moment.

If the bill passes it could open the door for Electorate Supremacy which currently only occurs in this country once every four or five years

Rescomania

Denis, we can start earlier, but the main ones are:

c.871 Alfred's legal codes
1101 Charter of Liberties of Henry I
1215 Magna Charta
1351 The Statues of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire
1352 The Statute of Pramunire
1559 Act of Supremacy
1628 Petition of Rights
1641 Grand Remonstrance
1689 Bill of Rights

The latter has two codicils - (1) any amendments after 23 Sept., 1689 are void and unlawful; (2) the Bill is for all time. It was on this Bill that Parliament was established and given the parameters of its power. This included the 1559 provision:
"No Foreign Prince, Person. State or Potentate. Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm." This can never be freely given (only by defeat in law).

You're confusing that they are not all on one document (as the USA's is) as meaning that they are not relevant. I think you're also confusing Parliament having sovereignty over any foreign (i.e. EU) jurisdiction (which it does) with Parliament having sovereignty over Common Law (which it does not).

I suggest you go and read them and how they came into existence and they you will see why not only is Parliament subservient to Common Law, but it that principle and that principle alone that safeguards your freedom.

Rob

Keep telling yourself that and see what happens.

Most people do not care about the EU one bit.

I will love to see how the British react when the Guns come out.

The EU is about as long term as the Euro.

I like Ice Cream, but I would not bet my future on it.

You have already lost the argument. The only play left is to dispense with Democracy.

Good luck with that one!

Rescomania

Brooks wrote:
"I am happy to withdraw my consent to the Theft Act and override the implied presumption you mention."

That would be unlawful (i.e. against Common Law). The rule of thumb is quite simple for Commom Law - as long as you don't hurt or injury or cause loss to someone or their property and as long as you are honest in your contracts then you're acting lawfully. So killing, rape, murder, fraud, theft etc., are all out.

"But before I go out to nick a car can you tell me what qualifications you have to give these opinions?"

I can only tell you as a Freeman. I suggest that you go and investigate for yourself. Of course, if you're happy to submit your person (look up what that means - clue: you have a person, you are not one) to Parliament, carry on.

Yam Yam

Whatver the legal niceties, a British Parliament could just simply vote to take back all its legal powers and defy the EU to do its worst.

And what is the worst thing that Brussels could do? Put Belgian and Spanish tanks on the streets of London?

denis cooper

Rescomania -

You do realise, I hope, that the last you mention, the Bill of Rights, was a statute, and indeed can still be read on the UK Statute Law Database?

And are you aware that despite this statute prohibiting amendments, and it being for all time, it was in fact amended by a new statute within just a few years?

And the same for the Act of Supremacy - not common law but another statute passed by the Crown in Parliament, and subsequently amended by the Crown in Parliament.

And similarly the Statutes of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire - statutes.

Rescomania

Denis - it's a common mistake to confuse the two types of statues and two types of Parliaments. The Bill of Rights statute was passed by a uniquely assembled parliament (think of a meeting / working group) made only for the purposes of codifying our already long standing rights for ever and eternity and to set up the basis for the legislature going forward on which all future laws must be based on. This one-off parliament was immediately dissolved upon completion and acceptance of the Bill, and the first general election was held giving us our first MPs. That is why although it is called a 'statute' it is not a Statute Act of Parliament.

In 1765, Chief Justice Blackstone confirmed the primacy of the Bill over Parliament.

It helps if you know that the chain of command in law is simple:
1. God (whether or not one believes in him or the built on the assumption)
2. Humans with living souls
3. Parliament
4. People (remember you are not a person in legalese, but you have one).

The Bill of Rights codifies our rights as humans (first codified by Alfred), which are forever and inherent and given by God (according to law) and therefore cannot be taken away by artificial construct (i.e. Parliament). We can consent to Parliament as People but as humans we always have the right to withdraw that consent and revert to our Common Law rights as humans are superior ot Parliament.

Rescomania

Re: my post above - a couple of errors:

Para 1. Should read: "...was held giving us our first MPs and our first Parliament."

Para 3, point 1. Should read: "...believes in him or not the legal system is built on the assumption that he does)."

Rescomania

Yam Yam - spot on. If Parliament chooses to it can end the EU nightmare.

denis cooper

Rescomania -

The Bill of Rights was and is a statute passed by the Convention Parliament with the assent of William and Mary; the following year a new Parliament passed another statute, the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act:

"An Act for Recognizing King William and Queene Mary and for avoiding all Questions touching the Acts made in the Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February one thousand six hundred eighty eight."

"And for the avoiding of all Disputes and Questions concerning the Being and Authority of the late Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February one thousand six hundred eighty eight Wee doe most humbly beseech your Majestyes that it may be enacted And bee it enacted by the King and Queenes most excellent Majestyes by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parlyament assembled and by authoritie of the same That all and singular the Acts made and enacted in the said Parlyament were and are Laws and Statutes of this Kingdome and as such ought to be reputed taken and obeyed by all the People of this Kingdome."

Both were and are statutes, and both can be found on the UK Statute Law Database here:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?&activeTextDocId=1518621

and here:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?&activeTextDocId=1518670

Rescomania

Denis – you’ve strengthened my point. The Convention Parliament (thanks, its proper name slipped had slipped my mind) was not the same as the new Parliament the following year. The Convention Parliament was set up following the third time a monarch who dared to contravene Alfred’s laws were forced to accept them or be removed (i.e. John at Runnymede and Charles I Petition of Right). In this case it was James II who refused Alfred’s laws (which rejected the Pope’s authority) and he was exiled and William & Mary were offered the administration of the country in lieu of being given the crown. Their early decisions to replace a number of senior officials / military with Dutchmen was not well received by the population and to quell the growing anger William and Mary convened a convention following his writs to every borough in England asking them to send a representative. They restated Alfred’s law in the Declaration of Rights and made their acceptance a condition for William and Mary to replace James II as King. They accepted and by 1699 the Dutch placemen were returned.

The Convention Parliament passed the Declaration into the Bill of Rights with the previously mentioned codicil. The statues and (statute) laws referred to in the second quote refer to People. As I’ve mentioned twice before, you are not a Person, you have one. To be clear as well, in 1765 Blackstone was referring to Alfred’s law as supreme.

Anyway to bring it back to the original point, the Oath that monarchs willingly swear to confirm coronation explicitly forbids the transferring of powers (including treaties) to foreign jurisdictions unless lost in war. Hence any Act of Parliament presented to the monarch that requires this would immediately be void upon its signature and the monarch’s position void as the Oath as been broken. Thus all EU treaties are void. Whether or not Queen Elizabeth’s position is void or if she is receiving “evil counsel” (and thus not acting treasonously even though the signed treasonous Act is still void) is another matter for debate. Regardless, under the Common Law superiority the Barons’ Committee was set up in accordance with the Magna Charta and the provisions within executed and served upon the Queen in 1999 stating as such and allowing all freeborn men to reject Parliament and any monies it demands on the basis that it unlawful and providing funds for foreign jurisdictions to hold power over freeborn English.

PS. I've enjoyed the debate and I used to accept and believe as you do. However, my interest in above (i.e. in further understading the history) changed my entire understanding, especially when reading the key documents first hand (or in original form) and reading older history books (mainly pre-1911 but some shortly after), which all confirm Alfred's law as supreme and the 1 to 4 order of 'chain of command' as above. Most people don't get past that fact that they are not a Person...