EURDEMOCRACY

MPs Reject Petition exposing the “Great Brexit Fraud” but Government gets the message.
Is That Petition Clear?
Apparently not. A panel of 11 MPs again rejected my Petition on the “Great Brexit Fraud”. The Petition was nevertheless sent to Prime Minister Theresa May and key Brexit ministers and committees.
The Petitions panel said its reason for rejection was that it was not sure what I was asking! The panel is composed of five Conservative MPs, five Labour and one Scottish nationalist.
They should have been well aware of the background.
Prime ministers of both Tory and Labour parties pledged that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was necessary to recognize it in law and constitutionally. They promised a referendum to deal with “massive” changes leading to a “European Super-State”.
In other words the Lisbon treaty makes a major dislocation to British democracy and the UK constitution. It creates powers ABOVE the nation State — directly contrary to the founding principles of the Community system. Robert Schuman was clear: the nation State was the final arbiter of the powers delegated in a Community. The people must be free to choose.
The legal need for referendums about the destiny of the country is not in dispute. Earlier, UK Referendums on changes affecting the Constitution were universally agreed as necessary without demur. They were held for democratic assent in establishing Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They considered a referendum necessary for asking the Scottish population about independence in 2014.
It goes without saying that changes or destruction to the democratic constitution of the whole United Kingdom must be subject to the people’s voice. That is why all recent governments were unanimous in promising a referendum on the EU treaty.
But neither Labour or Tory/Liberal Democrat, Tory or Tory/Democratic Unionist governments ever provided a referendum on the European Treaty and how it differed from the European Community. These constitutional changes have been made since 2000 and well before. They culminated in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009.
Instead, the Conservative government had a referendum based on article 50 of the treaty — that assumes the treaty was already legal! To my mind that is a scam.
Add to this outrage the fact that the treaty and all articles with few exceptions were rejected in French and Dutch referendums when the treaty was called the Constitutional treaty. To say that there is any substantial difference between the treaty rejected by these referendums and the Lisbon Treaty forced through without a referendum is, as the Economist wrote, “pitifully unconvincing.”

So let us just admit the Fraud. Cheat the people and they vote against you. So let us then logically analyse how Brexit became inevitable. That is the first step to repair confidence.

The Government is now in a deep, black hole of a Brexit dilemma. No one can agree about what to do.
  • How does the country escape financial ruin if all euro-based trading leaves UK and the City?
  • Legal collapse (No replacement agencies are in place, nor treaties)?
  • Industrial pauperisation?
  • How can a country look into the future with every British and European regulation legally unsafe?

So what can be done about it?

  • Why on earth would an honest government try to hide the fact that the treaty was soundly rejected in French and Dutch referendums?
  • That Governments promised one in the UK?
  • That Britons are still waiting for that?
  • Then to add insult to illegality the government is wrong in using an article in a treaty that first requires a referendum to activate it?
Surely it would be logical and necessary to examine the CAUSE of the problem? It needs to secure the future.
The Petition panel rejection allowed me to accomplish my main goal — to bring the illegality of the Brexit referendum decisively to the attention of the Prime Minister and her main Brexit ministers. It is now up to them to make a decision. History will judge them — and maybe the Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Strasbourg.
They should be aware of the consequences for parliamentary democracy and long-term lack of trust in UK institutions.
Both UK and Brussels are descending on a dangerous path to anarchy and oligarchy. Popularist demonstrations and hostile populist governments are the warning signal for even greater disorder.
What I did was to ask the Petition panel for an appeal of their decision. No mechanism is provided. So I wrote the following letter — with copies to the Prime Minister and four main Secretaries of State (Barclay, Lidington, Hunt, Fox) involved in Brexit, Brexit committee chairmen in the Commons and Lords, plus those former ministers to whom I sent my book in 2016 a few months after the Referendum result. That included Boris Johnson and David Davis.
A second petition on Euratom and Brexit is still under consideration by the panel. Euratom covers nuclear non-proliferation, safety, energy policy and medicine. It has been successfully applied since 1973.
The petition requires the Government to reverse its Article 50 Letter about leaving Euratom as it gave no notice or means to reject an exit. It had no debate. Before the vote it did not state in Parliament nor publish anything about leaving Euratom. Nor did it say anything about Euratom on the referendum ballot paper. Click this link to sign the petition:
Dear Sir or Madam,
{My petition is entitled } “Parliament and HMG must retract Article 50 Letter. Legal basis in treaty is flawed”.
I was surprised to be informed yesterday that my petition had been rejected by the petitions committee.
It was stated that “It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do. Petitions need to call on the Government or Parliament to take a specific action. We’re not sure exactly what you’d like the Government or Parliament to do. The Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009.”
I believe I was eminently clear about what the government and Parliament should do. I enumerated the following two points as
“Action required by Parliament and Government..
1. Withdraw or suspend Article 50 Letter
2. Hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to validate so it can be used for its Article 50.”
I also wrote to the Prime Minister Theresa May in 2016, four Secretaries of State concerned (Trade, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Brexit) and a number of MPs on the Brexit committees explaining the issues involved. I sent a copy of my book “Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe” to each of them.
A parliamentary discussion is urgently needed to review the legality of action that HMG and Parliament have already taken. Both major parties when in Government and Opposition said that a referendum was necessary to validate the EU Treaty. It can be concluded therefore that a referendum was considered legally indisputable to them.
And then they reneged.
The reasons they did not go through with this pledge and legal obligation is the crux of the debate that is now required by the public and the signatories of the petition. It also provides the solution to the Brexit dilemma.
Constitutionally and legally, the Lisbon Treaty needs to be properly validated according to their own promises, commitments and “cast-iron” guarantees of action. The EU treaty has changed not only the British constitution but added new institutions and power in Brussels “massively” modifying our relationship with Europe earlier (to quote Mr Cameron).
The previous European Community arrangement was subject to approval by referendum in 1975. No further change can be made from the Community system without a further referendum. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty completely changes the European Community system so radically. Both EEC and Euratom had articles (approved by the public in the 1975 referendum) that the treaties were in force for an unlimited period.
That means that Brexit under Article 50 of a subsequent treaty is ruled out. Permanence of the democratic link to the Continent and commitment to democratic solutions in open democratic institutions cannot be overruled by a legally unsafe treaty, consistently opposed by a majority of the population. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty and its earlier reincarnation were roundly rejected by other Member States in their referendums.
The petition would also provide the means to resolve the blockage in Parliament on the Withdrawal Treaty — where no majority can be found to move forward. A clarification of the UK constitutional position could provide a breathing space to consolidate UK policy. A judicial review of our democratic relations with Europe and its democracies is essential for a stable near- and long-term future. Britain’s voice is crucial for democratic reform of the European institutions to make them more open and accountable. The Democratic Deficit that has been on the political agenda for three or four decades needs to be tackled seriously.
I would therefore request that you supply me with
(a) the details about how this decision was made and clarifying the grounds it gave for rejection.
(b) the time and place the decision was made,
(c) the names of MPs who voted, with their reasoning.
(d) the system for making an Appeal because a decision was not impartial.
Yours etc
Author :
Print

Leave a Reply