Category Archives: EU

Killing two political birds with one stone

Resolving the UK’s unfinished devolution and the Irish border  questions

Robert Henderson

Brexit provides a wonderful opportunity to  deal simultaneously with  two major political difficulties.  These  are  the  unbalanced devolution arrangements  in the UK and   what is to be done  about the

Relationship   between  the Republic of Ireland (RoI)  and the UK after Brexit.  Both  problems  could be solved by the RoI leaving the EU at the same time as the  UK and forming a federation with the UK.

The unfinished business of  UK  devolution

Three of the four home countries – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  – have  each been granted elected assemblies or parliaments . From these are formed devolved governments which administer increasingly significant powers such as the control of policing, education and the NHS.  The  personnel of the devolved governments and assemblies/parliaments  have by their words and actions made it clear that  do not think of the national interest of the UK but  of what is best for  their  particular home country.

The fourth home country England has neither an assembly nor a government and consequently no body of politicians to speak for England and to look after her interests.   A procedure to have only  MPs sitting for  English seats  voting on English only legislation  (English votes for English laws or EVEL for short)  began a trial in 2015,  but  it  has few teeth because  it is difficult to disentangle what is English only  legislation, not least  because  MPs  for seats outside of England argue  that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly  England , unlike Scotland,  Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives   to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.

  The House of Lords review of its first year  in operation makes EVEL’s  limitations clear:

The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislation or provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.

Yet English MPs’ ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them

Not content with denying England a parliament and government of her own the UK government  has made strenuous efforts to Balkanise England by forcing elected mayors on cities and  the devolution of considerable  powers  to local authority areas built around cities  with Manchester in the vanguard of this development.   The ostensible  idea of this Balkanisation is to pretend that an English parliament and government is not necessary because devolution is being delivered on a regional basis to England: its covert intention is to ensure that  England cannot act as a political entity in its own right and have its representatives  asking  awkward questions such as why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  receiving so much more  per capita from the  Treasury each year than England receives.( The latest figures are: Scotland £10,536 per person,  Northern Ireland, £10,983  per person,  Wales £9,996  per person, England  £8,816 per person).

To balance the devolution settlement in the UK England needs a parliament and a government, not just to give her parity  with the other home countries, but to prevent the Balkanisation of England.  This could be done simply and without great expense by  returning   the Westminster Parliament to what it was originally, the English Parliament.   It could also function as the federal Parliament when that was required  to convene .  Hence, no new  parliament building would be required. Members of the Federal Parliament would be the elected representatives of the devolved assemblies of the four Home Countries and what is now the RoI.

The Republic of Ireland

Should the RoI decide to remain as a member of the EU she risks a hard border this  would  potentially mean an end to the free movement between the UK and the RoI and   the RoI having to deal with EU imposed tariffs on imports from the UK and UK reciprocal tariffs on goods exported by the RoI to the UK. It is important to understand that a “hard” border would  not just be that between the RoI and Northern Ireland,  but between the RoI and the whole of the UK.

The land border between the RoI and Northern Ireland   creates  two potential  dangers for the UK.   It could operate as a back door for illegal  immigrants to enter  the UK  and promote  the smuggling of goods.   At present the  UK government is attempting to foist onto the British public a nonsense which says that there  will be no need of a  “hard” border between  the RoI and Northern Ireland to prevent illegal immigration. Two lines of argument are employed to justify this.  First, that   it can be controlled by greater technological surveillance and   stricter  checks on employers, foreign benefit claimants  and landlords. Second, it is claimed that  the  fact that the UK is no longer an EU member   will mean  that the UK will be much less attractive to  people in the EU as a place to migrate to because they will not be able to get jobs or benefits.

This shows either a shocking  naivety or cynicism of a high order. The idea that people would not be able to gain employment simply because they are EU citizens ignores the fact that many illegal migrants from outside the European Economic Area  (EEA)  already do this.   Moreover, even  immigrants here legally have an incentive to work in the black market  because they  can avoid tax.

As for not paying benefits, how  would the authorities distinguish between the millions from the EU already in the UK who are almost certain to have the right to remain, and any new EU migrants?  It would be nigh on impossible.  It is remarkably easy to get a National Insurance number issued  in the UK and even if employers had stricter duties placed upon them not to employ EU citizens without a work permit or visa, there are plenty of employers who would be willing to employ those they knew were illegal because they are cheaper and more easily controlled and sacked  than British workers or theillegal  employer (this is a common thing with gangmasters)  is an immigrant  and makes a point of only employing  other immigrants from his or her  own country.  Once employed and with a National Insurance number they could claim in work benefits readily enough and probably out of work benefits too  because there is not the massive resources of manpower which would be  required to do the necessary checks on whether they  were eligible.

Whatever is said now there could not  in practice  be an open border  with the UK.   Even if  in the immediate  post-Brexit  period there  continued the present agreement between the UK and the RoI of free movement,  and this is what Theresa May is proposing, huge numbers of immigrants to the UK coming via the the RoI would create uproar amongst a British public who felt cheated that a hard border between the RoI and Northern Ireland would have to be created.

But even without the migrant question the idea that no “hard” border will be necessary  could be sunk if the EU or the UK imposes tariffs or quotas  on goods.  The ex-EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has  pointed this out forcefully:

“We have been told by a number of Conservative Party spokespeople that Britain will leave the common customs area of the EU.

“If this is true, the customs union, which relates to sharing a common external tariff of the EU, will have to be maintained by all other EU countries with the UK following its withdrawal. Goods will have to be checked at borders.”

While the RoI Foreign Secretary Charlie Flanagan has said a hard Brexit would be unworkable for Ireland.

The RoI would  have the worry that if they remained in the EU they could find themselves suddenly saddled with tariffs. If a genuine Brexit is achieved by the UK then it is possible that either the EU will place tariffs or quotas on UK goods  and the UK responds in kind or that this will happen because no agreement can be reached and the UK leaves the EU and trades under WTO rules.  This would be more than an inconvenience for the RoI because she has  very substantial economic ties to the  UK.

All these difficulties with devolution and the RoI border  would dissolve  with the creation of  a truly federal state comprised of  England,  Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland and what is now  the RoI. Such a federation would need to have  full home rule. The issues which would be left to the federal level would be important but few:  defence, foreign affairs,  control of coastal waters, customs, management of the currency  and  immigration.  This would not mean  that the policy areas reserved to the constituent countries’ parliaments  would not be brought to the federal level  without   the agreement of  the constituent countries. Large infrastructure projects such as roads and railways  covering two or more devolved jurisdictions would be a good example of the type of issue  which might be dealt with at the federal level.

Such a federation would have a good start for  England, Scotland,  Wales are all undisputed territories with no border disputes or awkward enclaves stuck in the middle of another  nation’s  territory.  The Irish  situation is more complicated,  but if the entirety of Ireland was in the new federation that would probably take much of the sting  which is left out of  the sectarian divide .  Moreover, the RoI  and Northern Ireland would still each have a separate identity and a devolved  political  class and institutions directly responsible to their respective populations.  One of the reasons for the great stability  of Great Britain (that is, England, Scotland and Wales) over the  centuries is the fact that each nation had its own territory.  That would continue under the federation I propose.

Why would the RoI join such a federation?

Why would the RoI wish to give up her independence?   They reality is that while she is part of the EU the RoI is not independent. To begin withshe  has no control of her currency  because the RoI  is part of the Eurozone. To that can be added the huge amount of control through EU regulations and directives., interferences  with national sovereignty  which a small state such as the RoI has little influence over because of the EU’s  qualified majority voting. Moreover,    the way the EU is going member states are likely to have less and less national autonomy as the federalist project proceeds.   (An alternative plausible and damaging scenario is that the EU collapses  within the next ten years , most probably through the other states wanting to follow the UK’s example and leave the EU or simply because the Euro crashes.  This would leave the RoI on her own.  )

For a long time the RoI benefitted greatly from being a net beneficiary  with more money coming to the RoI than the RoI sent to Brussels.  That is changing rapidly.  The  net payment the ROI receives from the EU no  longer huge in relation to the size of her economy  (GDP  €214.623 billion in 2015). The ROI’s  financial delings  with the EU in 2015 were:

Total EU spending in Ireland: € 2.009 billion

Total EU spending as % of Irish gross national income (GNI): 1.10 %

Total Irish contribution to the EU budget: € 1.558 billion

Irish contribution to the EU budget as % of its GNI: 0.86 %

It is probable that within the next few years the RoI will become a regular net contributor to the EU budget.

As for RoI  exports , those to  the EU have   declined by over the past year while  RoI exports to countries outside the EU grew.

Set against a  background of declining monetary benefit, weakening exports to the EU  and  increasing uncertainty  as to where the EU is going the  considerable advantages  the RoI would gain in addition to  removing the problems  a  border  between the RoI and Northern Ireland  create  begin to look decidedly attractive.

The RoI would be part of a political unit which was a significant military power,  was a permanent member of the UN Security Council and held high positions in powerful international bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The fact that the RoI is part of the Eurozone  need not be a great  problem,   because  the RoI  could immediately switch to the Pound Sterling as their currency.  This would  entail  far less upheaval than the RoI would experience if they remained in the EU and had to either leave the Euro of their own accord because it was too damaging or simply  find themselves without a currency because the Euro had collapsed.

Nonetheless I can see what an emotional wrench such a course would be  for any country which thinks of itself as a sovereign state.  That this is largely a sham whilst the RoI is within the EU  (the same applies to the UK until Brexit is achieved) is neither here nor there  if people think of a country as sovereign. Moreover, Ireland as a whole has a long and fraught history with the British mainland. Nonetheless , the RoI would have full control of her domestic matters and would actually have more control in many areas because there is so much that the EU now controls which would be left to each part of the federation.

There is also the greater question of what  the world will  be like in ten or twenty years.  Western Europe including the British Isles has enjoyed a remarkably long period of peace. That may  well not last. The threat may not come from European powers but new superpowers such as China and India.   This is not fanciful. There are approximately 7 billion people in the world at present  of whom at a most generous estimate only one billion live in the West.  It is overly sanguine to imagine that  such huge blocks of humanity  living outside the West will remain  forever without expansionist tendencies, tendencies  which could extend to Europe or even North America.  China in particular is engaged in quasi-empire building throughout the developing world.  In addition, there are strong signs that the world is casting globalisation aside with protectionist sympathies growing.   That makes the RoI’s substantial trade with the UK potentially even more important than it is now for we are likely to enter a world in which countries look to their own advantage. . Finally, there is the still largely ignored by politicians threat  of catastrophic unemployment which is almost certain to come in the next decade or two  from  the huge advances in robotics and Artificial Intelligence which will allow most existing jobs and,  most importantly,  most  new jobs which arise, to be done without human involvement .

In such an uncertain  world being part of a serious military, diplomatic and economic power could be much to the RoI’s  4.5 million population’s  advantage

The attempted  murder of Brexit

Robert Henderson

The remainers  are intent on murdering Brexit through the political equivalent of death by a thousand cuts.  Delay is their great   ally  and  there are plenty of individuals – politicians, mediafolk, academics, lobbyists, pressure groups, businessmen and much of the rest of the  amorphous mass of the Great and the Good   – who willing to play the role of Quislings in the service of the EU.

The decision by the High Court that the government cannot activate Article 50 to begin the process of the UK leaving the EU without  first getting Parliament’s approval  is as shameless a pierce of politically motivated judicial activism as you  could find.  It has potentially created  the type of constitutional clash which civil wars are fought over.

The Government has decided to appeal against the judgement. Permission has been given to bypass the Court of appeal  and go straight to the Supreme Court. The case should  be held on 5th December, but the judgement will  probably not be given until the New Year.    The Supreme Court has also given Scotland and Wales the right to intervene at the appeal hearing. This will broaden the matter to include the role,  if any,  of the devolved assemblies.  A case brought in Northern Ireland at their High Court  over Article 50 has already been dismissed as non-justiciable.

Senior English judges pushing their own political  agenda? Consider this. The three judges  involved  were Lord  Thomas of Cwmgiedd ( Lord Chief Justice ), Sir Terence Etherton (Master of the Rolls)  and Lord  Justice Sales .  There is nothing in Etherton’s  past to say what his stance of the EU would be, but the other two definitely have question marks over their impartiality.

Thomas was a founding member of the  European Law Institute, whose mission statement is  the ‘enhancement of European legal integration’ . He has  also served as  President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary.  It is reasonable to conclude that he is in favour of the UK’s membership of the EU.

Sales worked  in the chambers  headed  by the  erstwhile Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and is a friend of Tony Blair for whose government  he worked as First Treasury Counsel .  As Blair  and his government were firmly in the EU camp and Blair has recently been vociferous in denouncing the  vote for Brexit it is reasonable to suppose  Sales  sympathies [probably also lay with the remain side.

But even without relying on  pro-EU evidence it is a fair bet that any senior member of the judiciary is likely to be a Europhile and emotionally opposed to Brexit  because they come from a set of  people for whom Europhilia is the norm.  Moreover, is it really possible for anyone to be truly impartial when adjudicating on such a nakedly  political matter?

After the High Court Judgement it was widely thought that the passing of a  Bill permitting the activating of  Article 50 would  be sufficient to meet  the Court’ s judgment that Parliament must agree to the triggering  of Article 50.  That would have been difficult enough bearing in mind the preponderance of remainers in both Houses of Parliament. But the position has become more fraught. Astonishingly, one of the judges scheduled to hear the Supreme Court appeal, Lady Justice Hale, has publicly pronounced that  “Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple act of parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act…” If  the Supreme Cou,rt agrees with her the delay could be interminable.  Whether what Hales has said would  technically rule her out from hearing the Supreme Court appeal is not clear because she could argue she is merely putting forward a legal point to be considered, but it is an extraordinary thing for  any judge, let alone one of the most senior in England, to comment on a case which is to come before them.  It certainly adds to the suspicion that the higher judiciary is deliberately trying to block Brexit or at least prepare the ground for remainer politicians to manoeuvre for  conditions which will tie the government’ s hands to be conceded by the government, the majority of whom are also natural remainers.

Not a simple matter of law

The  London High Court judgement stressed that  the decision had  been made  simply as a matter of law and the court took no position on the desirability of otherwise of  the UK leaving the EU. But what did the judgement achieve in practical terms?  It said that  Article 50 could not be activated without Parliament voting on the matter,  possibly by a  motion, but most probably by voting on a Bill.  But if it was simply a matter of voting  on the Article 50 activation what would be the purpose of such a procedure  after  the question of leaving or remaining  had already been decided  by the voters?  It would be an empty act.

The answer  is all too obvious. The judgement meant  it would not simply be a question of Article 50 being given Parliamentary sanction. MPs and the Lords potentially would be able to delay the any Bill for a considerable period of time and  by placing amendments to  the Bill. If it was a motion the Commons could simply vote it down.

The Government  has a  small Commons majority, and could probably count on a handful of MPs from other parties to vote with them on this issue,  but the House has a substantial majority of those who wish the UK to remain in the EU. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons. Of those probably two thirds, including many Tory MPs,  are remainers. Hence, numerically, in theory it would be very easy to  defeat any Bill the government puts forward to activate Article 50. However, it is dubious whether many remainer MPs would want to be in such naked and  direct conflict with the voters who voted to leave by simply rejecting a Bill or a motion which did nothing more than authorise the activation of Article 50. Instead they will try to engineer a situation whereby  they will authorise the activation of Article 50 but only if  the government accepts that they will  negotiate within limits set by Parliament. The most probable limitation  would be that any agreement with the EU must include the UK’s continuing  membership of the single market. It  is wildly improbable that the EU would agree to that without insisting on free movement of labour,  the UK continuing to pay their annual “fee” and the UK being bound by the regulations which attach themselves to the single market and subject to the European Court of Justice or a  surrogate  such as that which performs the same function for EFTA countries .  In short, this would  require the UK to sign up to all that  voters rejected in the referendum and the country would remain within the EU in all but name.

All of this means that  High Court verdict was not a simple procedural matter but a legal  direction which very obviously  had effects which challenged the  viability of the vote to leave.  The issue  which the High Court should have addressed is  what would Parliament  have to examine before Article 50 was activated?  The question on the ballot paper was this:

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

(The question was  suggested by the Electoral Commission (EC)  and accepted by the Government after the EC had judged the government’s question biased in favour of remain. )

What was asked of the voter was beautifully simple:  do you want to remain part of the EU or do you want to leave the EU?.  To leave an organisation means precisely that, you cease to have either the benefits or duties which membership brings.  There is no I’ve left  the club and won’t be paying my subscription any more, but I still expect to be able to come into the members bar and use the squash courts.  Hence, there is no point in Parliament having a vote on Article 50 because the referendum has already decided that the UK will leave.  There is no hard and soft Brexit, just Brexit.

By coming down in favour of Parliament voting on the activation of Article 50 the judges went against both the wishes of the voters and what was necessary.  Whether they did so out of bias is a matter for their consciences, but it is a fact that by acting as they did it opened  a door  for the   remainers to cause delay and confusion in the hope of either getting  something that is called Brexit in name but not in fact  or of the UK eventually remaining in the EU after a second referendum.

The prerogative

The  High Court found that the 1972 European Communities Act meant that the prerogative could not be used to activate Article 50.  But as so often with legal judgements legal minds disagree,. Here is David Feldman is Rouse Ball Professor of English Law, University of Cambridge, giving a contrary opinion to that of the High Court:

The question in Miller was therefore, at root, whether the terms of the European Communities Act 1972 by necessary implication excluded the use of the Royal Prerogative to initiate a process which might, or in the view of the parties would, lead to the removal of EU rights from the domestic legal systems.  The Court thought that the relevant constitutional principles meant that the onus was on the Secretary of State to show statutory authority for initiating the Article 50 process.  I have argued that this was mistaken, and that there is no constitutional or interpretative principle which requires the 1972 Act to be read as excluding this prerogative power.  The implications to be drawn from the Act are, at best, equivocal.  In my submission, the foreign affairs prerogative is not excluded by statute, and requires no special statutory support for its use.  Initially I thought that my view was self-evidently correct.  The judgment of the Divisional Court shows that it is a matter on which informed opinions can differ….

It is also seems that  the government made remarkably  little effort to argue the case against justiciability of the High Court  action  (something which was successfully done in the Northern Irish High Court case)  – the BBC reported that “It was quickly established on both sides that the issue was justiciable”  and failed completely to base their defence of the action on the basis of popular sovereignty.  The government  also shot themselves in the foot by admitting that the activation of Article 50 would result in the loss of  some individual rights.  This moved the  triggering of Article 50 from being a simple procedure to something with the potential to trespass on statutes and hence beyond the power of the prerogative.  The attorney-general Jeremy Wright faced strong criticism from some Tory MPs for what they saw as ineptitude in the presentation of the government’s defence.

The logic of referenda

Whatever the status of the prerogative there is  also the  logical implications

of  holding a referendum .  Parliament voted overwhelmingly for the Act  (316 for  to 53 against ) which authorised a  referendum on EU membership.  There was no question of it only being advisory because  the Act which sanctioned the referendum contained  no such a clause and  politicians during the campaign did not say it was only advisory.

Apart from the fact that there is no mention of it being only advisory in the Act which legalised the referendum , there was plenty of evidence to establish beyond doubt that the  intention of the government was to treat it as a vote binding on the government.  The then  Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond opened  the second reading debate on the Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015 by stating:

“This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”

He followed it up with this:

“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

The government reiterated the intention  and status of the referendum when they  sent  a leaflet  to every   household in the United Kingdom

The page entitled  “A once in a generation decision”  ran:

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.”

 And

“This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide.”

All that being so, logically Parliament surrendered its power to make decisions about leaving the EU after the referendum Act was passed.

Finally, the claim that Parliament is at present  sovereign is clearly a nonsense because Parliament will remain subordinate to the EU and UK law subordinate  to that of the EU until the UK has left the EU.  The use of the prerogative is necessary to once again make Parliament sovereign.

The danger of betrayal by the government

An all too  plausible scenario is that there will be months of Parliamentary debate of one sort or another, perhaps taking the country well  into  the New Year with Article 50 still not activated.   At some  point Theresa May  says  well there has to be compromise and  agrees to attach limits to the negotiation her government cam undertake.  These will almost certainly include membership of the single market.

Why is that plausible?  Because May is a remainer  as are most of her cabinet. Three of the four great offices  of state  are filled with remainers – PM (May), Chancellor (Hammond) , Hone Secretary (Rudd) – while the fourth, the Foreign Secretary (Johnson) is a shameless careerist who could turn remainer at the drop of  a hat if he thought that would improve his prospects of becoming PM.   Such an outcome might well suit a majority of the Cabinet.

Already there are  the ominous signs  that despite the vote to leave  attempts  are being made to stitch theUuK back into the EU.   the UK has opted to go back into Europol and Boris Johnson is seeking to  retain the UK as the host for the European Capital of Culture in 2023. The danger is that this type of piecemeal tying of the UK back into the EU may  continue  without adequate protest because the ordinary British voter may understandably not be aware of the significance of  each individual hook which re-attaches the UK to Brussels.

It is true that two of  the three ministers who have  formal responsibility for the detailed  management of Brexit  ,  Liam Fox and  David Davies  ( Boris Johnson is the third)  – do have strong Brexit credentials but they are second rank ministers.  Obvious choices  of  rock-steady Brexiteers to be involved at secretary of state level such as  Bill Cash and  John Redwood  have been left out of the of the  government.

There is also almost blanket support amongst opposition parties for a resistance to leaving the EUI. On the Labour side Corbyn has already announced that a commitment to maintaining the UK’s access to the single market is the price for Labour’s support for the Activation of Article 50. (This after saying on 24 June that it should be triggered immediately)  In addition, a senior  Labour MP  Hilary Benn  (a remainer)  is chairing the Select Committee for Exiting the EU . Although he has said he will  not  try to block  the activation of Article 50,  he will still have a good deal of power to influence matters.

Most of the rest of the Commons is also opposed to leaving the EU. The LibDems  have said their manifesto at the next election  will contain a promise to rejoin the EU if the UK has already left before the election.  The SNP and the Welsh Nationalists are  both intent on either the UK remaining in the EU or having   some form of special arrangement  for Scotland  and Wales to  remain in the EU or some other close relationship

But the Supreme Court case is not the only attempt using the law to delay and confuse the move towards Brexit. The Crown Prosecution Service stands poised to enter the Brexit fray,  viz:.

‘Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, is considering a complaint of “undue influence” on the referendum by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns.

‘The complaint centres around a claim that £350million per week could be spent on the NHS if Britain left the EU and a leaflet which read “Turkey is joining the EU”, along with assertions that “Britain has no border controls whilst in the EU”.

It is truly extraordinary that those with power within our justice system are so pantingly anxious to get themselves involved.  This complaint was not made by the police as is the  normal way for a prosecution to be laid before the CPS  but directly to Steadman who made the decision to consider the complaint on her own authority.

There are the irritatingly predictable suggestions from the media that “Theresa May will call a general election”. This is no longer in her power. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act schedules the next election for 2020.  Unless May would be willing to make something a vote of no confidence in her government and contrive to lose the vote, an earlier election would  requires two thirds of the House of Commons to vote for it.  That is 417 members out of 650.  The Government would need all its MPs plus another 90 or so from other parties to vote for a dissolution of Parliament, something very unlikely because the Labour Party is in disarray and the SNP would gain nothing by having another election. There would also probably be quite a few Tory MPs who would be reluctant to risk losing their seatsl with only 18 months of the Parliament gone.

What does this solid mass of resentful remainers  mean for UKip and, indeed, every  person who voted to leave on 23rd June?  It means  that the government must be harried all the way till the time until   Brexit in fact as well as name is achieved . It means that opposition parties must be left in no doubt that if they attempt to thwart  Brexit this will have dire electoral consequences for them. It means that every individual MP with a  constituency which voted to leave should tremble in their boots  at the  thought that if they  attempt to delay the activation of Article 50 their constituents will eject them at the next General Election.

 

BREXIT – BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!


BREXIT – BEFUDDLED AND BE-JUDGED!


The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has made a preliminary and sensational ruling on how Brexit must be approached. The case, in addition to being politically significant, is of course legally and constitutionally significant as the High Court did pull out all the stops knowing that that was the case, with no less than three of the most senior judges in the England and Wales jurisdiction sitting on the case; the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales. The case itself is :- The Queen on the application of (1) Gina Miller & (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos – and – The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. It can be found on the court website here:- https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

The case is worth reading if you are at all interested in the law of Constitution. 

There is however a potted summary here for those less interested in legal details >>>

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

Here is the text of the Summary:-

“R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Summary of the judgment of the Divisional Court

References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.

The Question

1. The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.

2. It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50 [67-72, 76 and 105-108].

3. On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1973 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.

4. Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

 
5. The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement to an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].

6. Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].


The Constitutional principles

7. The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has not effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].

8. In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].

9. The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].

Conclusion

10. The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].

11. For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.

This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.”

Following the release of this Judgment there has been an attack on the political and demographic origins of the three Judges, all three of whom are the product of Labour’s Lord Derry Irvine “Reforms” to the selection and promotion of the judiciary. Lord Irvine expressly said these had been engineered to “ensure that no-one with reactionary views could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary”. This expressed objective has clearly been achieved with these three judges. The

Lord Chief Justice background as an active Europhile was amply exposed in the Daily Mail article here >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html

In the original version of the article, the Daily Mail also reported the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton as being the first “openly gay” senior Judge and also as having married his boyfriend in “a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony”.

Lord Justice Sales was exposed as being one of Lord Irvine’s personal protégées.

So it appears that we can be reasonably confident of the personal views and political prejudices of all three judges!

From a lawyer’s point of view there was therefore, particularly with the Lord Chief Justice, good grounds for applying the approach which was adopted by the House of Lords in the Pinochet case to Lord Hoffman who had ruled based on his own political prejudices. The case can be found here>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pino01.htm

The most extraordinary aspect of this fiasco is that any reasonably competent country solicitor would have advised the Government that where a challenge was being made to legal rights to take action (in this case the Government giving notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) the obvious thing to do is to get on with it and give the Notice.

This of course would have made it pointless continuing with the court case. The Notice would already have been accepted by the European Union and the process of leaving the EU would therefore be underway regardless of what any court had to say. In such cases the courts are very unwilling to give rulings on what are described as “moot points”. It follows that the fiasco is a product of delay and incompetence within the May Government.

Turning back to the Judgment, it is a Judgment that is more dubious on previous legal authority than it sounds as it is phrased in what has been described as “muscular” language. I would also respectfully suggest it seems to be over certain of its legal position. This is however partly a result of the incompetence of the Attorney General in agreeing that the case was “justiciable”.

As an example of arguments that show that the Judgment is more dubious than it seems, see here for an academic analysis >>> https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/11/04/the-high-courts-judgment-in-miller-a-brief-comment/

Here is the text of the article:-

“The High Court’s judgment in Miller: A brief comment

The following short comment on the High Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) was published on the Judicial Power Project’s website and is reproduced here with permission. The piece is part of a collection of short commentaries published by the Judicial Power Project; the full collection can be accessed here. I will be publishing a more detailed piece on Miller in due course.

Some of today’s press coverage of the judgment in Miller, accusing judges of acting undemocratically, is deplorable. It is entirely right and proper that the Court should determine the legal extent of executive authority. That is an axiomatic judicial function in a democracy founded on the rule of law. But what of the content of the decision?

The judgment is striking in its muscularity. The Court considered the Government case to be so weak that it judged it untenable before even considering the claimant’s arguments in detail. The Government’s case, said the Court, was ‘flawed’ at a ‘basic level’. Reading the judgment, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had advanced a heterodox argument of outlandish proportions. In fact, it was simply asserting that it could use a prerogative power to begin negotiations on the international plane. None of this is to deny the subtlety of the issues to which that contention gives rise concerning the relationship between EU and domestic law, and the role played by the European Communities Act 1972 in mediating that relationship. But as John Finnis has shown, the Government’s position is far from unarguable.

Once the Divisional Court had accepted — contrary to Finnis’s view — that EU law rights are to be considered domestic statutory rights enacted by Parliament, its focus inevitably shifted to the question whether the ECA was to be read as having displaced the Government’s ability to use the prerogative to begin the Article 50 process. In concluding that the ECA had indeed produced such an effect, the Court engaged in a highly creative process of statutory interpretation that involved relying upon the ECA’s status as a ‘constitutional statute’; treating the Act’s ‘constitutional status’ as evidence of Parliament’s intention — a view that is in tension with Laws LJ’s analysis in Thoburn; invoking certain ‘background constitutional principles’ that are relevant to statutory interpretation; and asserting that those principles are particularly relevant to the construction of constitutional statutes.

My point, in this short comment, is not to assess the correctness of the court’s conclusion on this matter. Rather, it is to observe that that conclusion — and the reasoning on which it is based — is highly contestable. Perhaps, therefore, the most surprising aspect of Miller is that the confident certainty of the terms in which the judgment is framed obscures almost entirely the complexity and contestability of the questions to which it gives rise, concerning the selection, content and interaction of the constitutional principles that form the prism through which the ECA falls to be examined.”

The core of the Judgment is that the central institution within the Constitution is the Crown in Parliament. Here is a section of the Judgment well worth quoting and bearing in mind.

“ The principles of constitutional law: the sovereignty of Parliament and the prerogative powers of the Crown

The United Kingdom constitution
 
18. The United Kingdom does not have a constitution to be found entirely in a written document. This does not mean there is an absence of a constitution or constitutional law. On the contrary, the United Kingdom has its own form of constitutional law, as recognised in each of the jurisdictions of the four constituent nations. Some of it is written, in the form of statutes which have particular constitutional importance (as we explain at paragraphs 43-44). Some of it is reflected in fundamental rules of law recognised by both Parliament and the courts. There are established and well-recognised legal rules which govern the exercise of public power and which distribute decision-making authority between different entities in the state and define the extent of their respective powers. The United Kingdom is a constitutional democracy framed by legal rules and subject to the rule of law. The courts have a constitutional duty fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic state to enforce rules of constitutional law in the same way as the courts enforce other laws.
 
19. In these proceedings, this court is called upon to apply the constitutional law of the United Kingdom to determine whether the Crown has prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 to trigger the process for withdrawal from the European Union. The law we were taken to was primarily the law of England and Wales, with some reference to the position in the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although this court only has jurisdiction to apply the law of England and Wales, we note that no-one in these proceedings has suggested that such parts of constitutional law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the interaction between statute and the Crown’s prerogative powers as are relevant to determine the outcome in this case are any different from the law of England and Wales on that topic. Accordingly, for ease of reference and in view of the general constitutional importance of this case we will refer to UK constitutional law.
 
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
 
20. It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme (we will use the familiar shorthand and refer simply to Parliament). Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses. There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen. The ECA 1972, which confers precedence on EU law, is the sole example of this.
 
21. But even then Parliament remains sovereign and supreme, and has continuing power to remove the authority given to other law by earlier primary legislation. Put shortly, Parliament has power to repeal the ECA 1972 if it wishes.
 
22. In what is still the leading account, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution by the constitutional jurist Professor A.V. Dicey, he explains that the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has:

“the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”

(p. 38 of the 8th edition, 1915, the last edition by Dicey himself; and see chapter 1 generally).

Amongst other things, this has the corollary that it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law:

“The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.” (ibid. pp. 57 and 72).
 
23. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised many times in leading cases of the highest authority. Since the principle is common ground in these proceedings it is only necessary to cite the speech of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Jackson) v Attorney General[2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262 at para. [9]:

“The bedrock of the British constitution is … the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament …”.
 
 The Crown’s prerogative powers
 
24. The extent of the powers of the Crown under its prerogative (often called the royal prerogative) are delineated by UK constitutional law. These prerogative powers constitute the residue of legal authority left in the hands of the Crown. As Lord Reid said in Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, at 101:

“The prerogative is really a relic of a past age, not lost by disuse, but only available for a case not covered by statute.”
 
25. An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers. But the constitutional limits on the prerogative powers of the Crown are more extensive than this. The Crown has only those prerogative powers recognised by the common law and their exercise only produces legal effects within boundaries so recognised. Outside those boundaries the Crown has no power to alter the law of the land, whether it be common law or contained in legislation.
 
26. This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since.
 
27. Sir Edward Coke reports the considered view of himself and the senior judges of the time in The Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74, that:

“the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”

and that:

“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.”
 
28. The position was confirmed in the first two parts of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688:

“Suspending power – That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing power – That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.”
 
29. The legal position was summarised by the Privy Council in The Zamora [1916] 2 AC 77, at 90:

“The idea that the King in Council, or indeed any branch of the Executive, has power to prescribe or alter the law to be administered by Courts of law in this country is out of harmony with the principles of our Constitution. It is true that, under a number of modern statutes, various branches of the Executive have power to make rules having the force of statutes, but all such rules derive their validity from the statute which creates the power, and not from the executive body by which they are made. No one would contend that the prerogative involves any power to prescribe or alter the law administered in Courts of Common Law or Equity…”

These principles are not only well settled but are also common ground. It is therefore not necessary to explain them further.”

This approach is, to be fair, consistent with the way our Constitution Law has developed. I have previously commented that democracy is very much a bolt-on to the oligarchic principles of the British Constitution. No clearer statement of that could really be sought from any legal Judgment.

In a genuine democracy it is the “People” and the “Nation” which is sovereign, not some constitutional construct like the “Crown in Parliament”. In a genuine democracy the “Crown in Parliament” would be seen to be the delegates of the People not their masters. The People within a democracy are “citizens” not “subjects”. The United States Constitution has a greater aspiration towards being democratic than our constitution which is why there is reference to “we the People…” and court cases are brought in the name of “the People” against the accused rather than as here “the Crown” against the accused.

So what we have in this case is a strongly worded logical Judgment based on the traditional unpinning of the Constitution arising out of the English Bill of Rights and 1689 Glorious Revolution, not on the theory of democracy or any ideas of nationhood.

It looks to me from the Judgment as if the Government may also have failed to argue a distinction between directly applicable EU rights that arise through the EU system and are directly applied as a result of the European Communities Act and have agreed that those rights are the same in essence as rights arising from either Common Law or Statute. Those are the rights which previous cases have upheld as being outside the power of the Royal prerogative to change.

That being the case it may well be that the Supreme Court next month will rule to uphold this Judgment. If that is the case then be in no doubt that the giving of notice under Article 50 will require primary legislation to go through Parliament. That is an Act to be passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and to be given Royal Assent and to be implemented by an Order from the Privy Council.

Such legislation to become an Act of Parliament will be subject to all sorts of quibbles and delaying tactics by the Remainers who form a huge majority of Members of Parliament and Peers. It follows that we look like we are entering a major constitutional crisis at least equivalent to that of Lloyd George’s budget in 1911, which, combined with the Irish Question, got us perilously close to civil war with the then Leader of the Conservative Party involved in smuggling arms!

There is also the tempting question to Tories of whether the Conservatives can get electoral advantage by wrong-footing Labour into outright opposition to such a bill and then being able to get a two thirds majority in the House of Commons for a snap election under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act!

As a postscript would the Conservatives campaigning for a mandate to trigger the Article 50 notice be temptingly likely to achieve Theresa May’s aim of destroying UKIP?

It will also be interesting to see if Labour can actually survive as a Party outside of the metropolitan areas on a ticket of opposing Brexit when a vast majority of their voters in much of the rest of England voted to Leave in June’s EU Referendum!

EU Referendum – England voted 53.37% to leave

England voted 53.37% to leave and 46.63% to remain

How do is the figure derived?

 

Total vote 33,551,983

Comprised of

Leave:     17,410,742 (51.9%)

Remain:  16,141,241 (48.1%)

 

Scot Leave:              1,018,322

NI    Leave:                 349,442

Wales Leave:              854,572

Celts Leave  Total    2,222,336

 

Scot Remain:               1,661,191

NI  Remain                     440,707

Wales Remain:              772,347

Celts  Remain Total    2,874,145

 

Subtract the Celts totals for Leave and  Remain and subtract those from the overall Leave and Remain votes, viz:

England Leave:    17,410,742 – 2,222,336 = 15,188,406 = 87.23% of the leave vote

England Remain: 16,141,241 –  2,874,145 =13,267,096 =  82.19% of the remain vote

Total England vote 28,455,502

 

Finally calculate the percentage of the England vote for Leave and Remain

This is  gives  53.37% to Leave and 46.63% to  Remain

Brexit: The threat from  the Remainers…and how to refute and defeat them

Robert Henderson

The anti-democratic behaviour of the remainers over the EU referendum vote  is not a surprise but the brazenness and crudity of their attempts  is still shocking  and deeply  worrying  because  a majority of those with power and public influence   in the UK – politicians, academics, mediafolk or the hodge podge of those working for think tanks and charities – are remainers at heart.   That applies to the people at the very head of the government for  none of the holders of the four great offices of state  is a sincere Brexiteer.  We have a  PM (Theresa May) , Chancellor (Philip Hammond)  and Home Secretary(Amber Rudd) who are by temperament,  conviction and public statement  Europhiles and a foreign Secretary (Boris Johnson)  who is a slippery careerist liable to change his position back to remainer anytime he thinks it will benefit him.  In addition,  Theresa May is the worst sort of remainer, namely, a cowardly one, whose taste for duplicity was shown during the Referendum  campaign when she  wanted to have her  political cake and eat it by saying she was for remaining in the EU whilst doing precious little campaigning for a remain vote.

It is true that  May has appointed two ministers( David Davies and Liam Fox )who are solid supporters of Brexit to oversee the day-to-day progress of Brexit,  but they   could well turn out to be window dressing to enable May to allay the  suspicions  of those who want Brexit that she is working towards arranging a deal with the EU for the UK  to remain stitched into the fabric of the EU. Once  Article 50 is triggered May could decide to dump them or adopt such an obstructive stance  prompt them to resign.  Once Article 50  goes live that  gives her two years breathing space to subvert the aims of Brexit and provides ample opportunity to claim that concessions  on things such as  free movement  or paying a fee for access to the single market will have to be made.   We already have hints of this in the priming of the media  with stories about how all existing EU immigrants to the UK  – all 3,.6 million of them – will be allowed to stay.

UKip’s immediate purpose

The potential grip the remainers have on the Brexit process means that is essential  for  May and Co  to be  kept under the tightest scrutiny until the  UK is out of  the EU .  That is Ukip’s  immediate purpose.  To this end everything possible should be done to try to  persuade Nigel Farage to stay on until Brexit is secured.

The Government must be pressed whenever it fails to commit itself to these lines in the sand:  no   free movement  or any other restriction by the EU on the UK’s ability to control her borders;    an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the UK;  no payment by the UK of money to the EU  for any reason and an end to the European Arrest Warrant . In addition, whenever, politicians, especially those on the government side,  try to water down the idea of Brexit through vague and ambiguous wording,  this should be made a matter of public comment and record.   Those who seek to subvert  the will of the British people should be forced to  live in a mental world in which they know that any attempt to deliver less than the Brexit promised by the referendum question will be exposed for what it is, profoundly anti-democratic behaviour which  not so long ago would have been called treason.

Lines in the sand

The idea that lines in the sand make for a weak bargaining position does not stand up. Giving away your hand before negotiating is only weakness if  one side of a negotiation gives up important ground before negotiations begin. . David Cameron did that with his “negotiation” with the EU  before the referendum.  Cameron  not only failed to have any lines in the sand he signalled his weakness by not asking for a radical deal on free movement. The lines in the sand listed above are signs of strength which say this is what we cannot concede. Such a stance would either drive the rest of the EU to decide that the best thing would be to get the UK out of the EU as quickly as possible  by rapidly  agreeing to a reasonable  deal  or prompt  the rest of the EU hierarchy  to show their true colours of being  utterly hostile to the UK . This should force the UK government to see the only way forward is to simply leave and trade under WTO rules as John Redwood amongst others has advocated.

Within  the general  scrutiny there is the  task of rigorously  rebutting the  particular claims of the remainers as to why the referendum should not be accepted.  This can be readily done by sticking to the facts and following the logic of what a referendum implies for Parliament.   Let me demonstrate.

The lie at the heart of the remainers argument

Contrary to what the  remainers are now  claiming voters knew precisely what they were voting for. The clue is in the ballot paper question (which was put forward by the Electoral Commission) :

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The ballot question  did not ask should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or seek whether she should seek another status such as that of Norway or Switzerland.  It does not say that there should be another referendum on whatever terms are agreed.  There is no equivocation whatsoever; the choice  was  out or in.   If the UK had  left the EU the day  after the vote and  traded under WTO rules or even simply  declared UDI either behaviour would have been in accord with the referendum question.

In addition, the European Union Referendum Act makes no provision for a second  referendum on the terms of withdrawal.  There is good reason for this, the question on the ballot paper was crystal clear: leave means leave.

The electors did not understand

The idea that those who voted to leave were largely   ignorant and poorly educated white working class  people who did not  know any better is absurd.   I can vouch from my own experience of talking to many people from a workingclass background that they had absolutely no difficulty in understanding what the vote was about, namely, regaining sovereignty, being masters in our own house, controlling our own affairs, saying who should be allowed to come into this country – these are ideas which are, for the politically correct, all too well understood by electors in general.

But  let us for the sake of argument allow that it was  the  less educated  who disproportionately voted for   Leave.  Would that have been a bad thing?  In 1984 Orwell put these words into the head of Winston Smith: “If there is hope it lies with the proles.” The reason for that was the proles had not been seriously infected by the doctrines of  IngSoc, the only political party in Britain in 1984. So it is with the  Britain today. The white working class  has  not been seriously infected with the totalitarian  creed that is political correctness.  They have a deep well of unforced unselfconscious patriotism and readily understand that mass immigration is invasion and that membership of any international political  body results in the theft of sovereignty which allows  a quisling political class to deform democracy.  In reality they were the type of people most suited to vote leave for they were the people who experienced most directly the effects of mass immigration from  Europe, the lowered wages, the creation of a cruel housing shortage, the transformation of the areas in which they lived  caused by large immigrant inflows..

The claim that the referendum vote was narrowly won  

The overall vote on a 73% turnout  was Remain 16,141,241 Leave: 17,410,742. That gave a leave  majority of  1,269,501. In percentage terms 51.90 voted to Leave and 48.1 to stay. England voted by nearly 54% to leave.  It was a decisive if not utterly overwhelming victory.  Had such a result been for remaining you may be sure  the remainers would be calling it a comprehensive result.  Indeed,  had there been a very narrow vote to  remain can anyone doubt from their behaviour since the result  that the remainers would be saying “one vote more is enough? “

On the legal front it should be noted that there is  no stipulation in the  European Union Referendum Act that either  a certain  percentage of all qualified electors or a certain percentage of those voting  must vote to  leave to activate a  Brexit .

The referendum was only advisory

Perhaps the most popular fraudulent claim by remainers  is that the referendum was only  advisory. Nothing in the European Union  Referendum Act states that it is simply advisory. The only arguments  which could be put forward to support the  claim  are (1)  to claim that the absence of a clause placing Parliament under an obligation to act on the result should be taken to mean that it was only advisory or (2) that  Parliament is the final font of authority in the UK and, consequently, any referendum is automatically only advisory unless it is made clear in an Act of Parliament authorising a referendum that Parliament  and the government must act on the result of the referendum. The word Jesuitical comes to mind.

These arguments if taken seriously  would mean that anything which is not specifically  sanctioned or banned in the European Union Referendum Act  can be read into the Act.  This goes against English law in  which things that are not specifically banned or made compulsory are taken to be legal.   In European systems of law what one may legally do has to be stated. It is the difference between negative and positive  law. As the European Union Referendum Act  is English law the absence of a clause stating the referendum was merely advisory  means it is  binding on Parliament  and the government.

It is also true that during the referendum campaign  none of the official  leave and remain campaign groups made any play with the idea that the referendum was only advisory.

The claim that the prerogative should  not be used to trigger Article 50 or sanction  the terms of leaving  the EU

The referendum was a manifesto commitment of the Conservatives in the general election of 2015. Parliament voted for the  European Union  Referendum Act  in 2015 by 316 for and 53 against.

Once the holding of a referendum has been agreed by Parliament  the rules of the game change for Parliament.  Unless provision is made in the Act authorising a referendum for it to be only advisory or  a clause inserted stating that Parliament shall vote on what action should be taken after the outcome of the referendum,   MPs and Lords cannot claim that it is Parliament’s role to vote on the outcome of the referendum .  The holding of a referendum whose outcome is not   just advisory trumps the authority of Parliament because  if  it did not the reason for the referendum would vanish.

There is also amply  precedent for the use of the prerogative by  UK governments  in connection with treaties relating to what is now the EU. The UK’s admission to what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 was done without a referendum through the use of the prerogative by Edward Heath  and every  treaty emanating from what is now the European Union has also not been presented to Parliament for their approval but given legal status by the use of the prerogative.

The position on who makes the decision on the renegotiation terms is also straightforward: it is a treaty matter  and the negotiation of and acceptance of treaties are a  prerogative power. End of story. Parliament does not have to come into it, although either House could pass motions asking the government to take note of whatever those wanting the new relationship with the EU to be less than Brexit .

The practical consequences of  May’ schedule for leaving the EU

If Theresa May’s schedule for leaving the EU is followed the UK will have had 33 months of remaining in the EU subject to all the rules, regulations and obligations which existed on 23rd  June plus any new EU laws passed between the 23Rd June and March 2019.   During those 33 months the UK will be suffering  this:

  1. Be paying its contributions to the EU in full. The net amount (the sum  the UK does not get back from their gross  contribution)  for 33 months would be around £24 billion.   Moreover, the money that is returned to the UK by  the EU in the 33 months (££12 billion approx.)  has to be spent not as the British government decides but as the EU decrees.
  2. Have to allow citizens of the European Economic Area  to continue to  freely enter and work in the UK.   Half a million or even a million new EU immigrants could plausibly come in before the UK formally leaves because of reports suggesting that an amnesty for all EEA citizens will apply at the point where the UK finally leaves.
  3. Be forced to put any new EU directives into law  unless  it is one of the rare instances where a national veto still applies.

4 Be expected to enforce any existing EU laws including things such as the European Arrest Warrant.

  1. Still be liable to be taken before the European Court of Justice.

5 Be unable to make any bilateral trade treaties  or any other form a treaty which conflicts with treaties  made by the EU.

  1. Be paying in work and out of work benefits to many EEA citizens in the UK.
  2. Be funding the children of EEA citizens in the UK through the provision of school places and healthcare.
  3. Be accepting citizens from the EEA for free NHS treatment.
  4. Be funding students from the EEA through subsidized fees and  student loans
  5. Be unable to give preference to UK companies when putting public contracts out  to tender.

The great enemy of  a true Brexit is time.

The remainers can, like Mr Micawber,  wait for something to turn up  and unlike Mr Micawber they  have every reason to believe that something might  indeed save them in the two years provided by Article 50; perhaps another  world depression or simply the UK being economically  destabilised by the uncertainty of the long  delay.  That being so, what   we need is an end to equivocation by those controlling the Brexit process and the fastest possible removal of the UK from the EU.

Could a really  quick exit be achieved legally?  That is debatable purely in  terms of international law. It is true that   The Vienna Convention on Treaties  in  Article  62 allows for the voiding of a treaty in a matter of months if there is a “fundamental change of circumstances” but that does not apply where the change of circumstances has been caused by the country wishing to leave.

But in the end leaving the EU is a political not a legal matter and the fact that the EU have provided a mechanism to depart   in Article 50 shows that flawed as that means of leaving  is,  the EU acknowledges that a member state may leave.  The UK is s not the position that the Confederacy found themselves in in mid 19th century USA where there was no legal route out.

The  matter comes down to this,  do you  honestly believe that the EU would wish to be seriously at odds  with a  country with the sixth  largest economy in the world ,  a massive trade deficit with the EU, a country which  is a permanent  member of the UN Security Council and which  holds major positions on most of the important international organisations such as the IMF.    Moreover,  at the purely  practical level the UK is a partner in cross border European enterprises such as Airbus and  the consortium producing the Eurofighter.

All that being so, surely the odds are  that  if the UK plays sticks to its Brexit guns the EU will, after a good deal of huffing and puffing,  let the UK  go on reasonable terms.    Truth to tell, the real danger comes from those in Britain in positions of power and influence who covertly or overtly wish to sabotage Brexit.

 

Lord Palmerston sums up all that Brexit is about

Lord Palmerston:  “I hold with respect to alliances, that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful, to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England—apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial—is to be the champion of justice and right; pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks that wrong has been done…I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow… And if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.”

  • Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848).

Don’t be fooled: EU enthusiast Teresa May is intent on subverting Brexit

Robert Henderson

In office for less than 48 hours,  Teresa May   showed her true colours and intentions for Brexit when she made the remarkable promise that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will not be activated until there is agreement between Westminster and the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.   This has the effect of allowing the UK’s departure indefinitely. In a separate statement  SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon  has supported this idea.  May has also  visited Wales and said she wanted the Welsh government to be “’involved and engaged’ in Brexit negotiations.”

The fact that May’s first act after choosing a cabinet was to go running off to Scotland  to meet the  SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon before embracing  the patently absurd idea that both Scotland’s  wishes to remain in the EU and the majority UK wish to leave  the EU  could be reconciled shows this was planned before she became PM . Her visit to Wales, doubtless to be followed by one to Northern Ireland, reinforced the suspicion, if it needed reinforcing, that she is intent on sabotaging Brexit.

There is plenty of other  evidence of May’s duplicitous  intentions . At her first cabinet meeting she  said “we will not allow the country to be defined by Brexit”.  This is nonsensical if May is committed to Brexit.  Regaining sovereignty is what Brexit is about and sovereignty defines what a country is.

What is May’s motivation for this behaviour? Like a majority of Tory MPs  she does not want to leave the EU and is intent on finding a way of subverting  Brexit.  She can do this in two ways:

(1) May will  use the excuse of accommodating  the wishes of Scotland and, Wales and NI to   delay the UK’s exit as long as possible in the hope that  unforeseen events, for example,    the UK economy goes into  prolonged recession,   will  give her an excuse to hold another  referendum.

(2) May will agree terms with the EU which stitch us back into the EU with things such as free movement and she will justify  such an agreement  on the grounds that Scotland and NI and possibly Wales will not agree to anything less.

All of this would go against what the British voted for on 23rd June.  You might say neither this government nor Parliament  would tolerate such a rejection of popular will.  The problem is that despite the clear majority to leave  most MPs, including Tory MP s,  wish to remain inside the EU and two thirds of May’s cabinet are remainers.  The House of Lords is also solidly for remaining in the EU.  In principle Parliament could accept whatever deal is reached with the EU. If  it is several years down the line, as it almost certainly will be if Article 50 is activated,  this could mean that the voters will have been exhausted and confused by the whole process and fail to protest  effectively enough to prevent the stitch up happening.

There is also the possibility that May could distract or  “buy” the acquiescence of Tory Brexiteers  to a sell-out of the Brexit vote by giving them some red meat such as increasing defence spending and the permitting of new grammar schools.

But even if the British voter is outraged by such a betrayal  what exactly could they do to stop it happening?  At the next general  they could vote against any MP who voted to accept what might be called a Quisling agreement.  But who exactly  could they vote for? Ukip is the obvious party and there is now  a real opportunity for it to gain a serious Commons presence. But it is unlikely to form a government in the near future because history shows it takes a great deal to shift voters en masse to a new party and even in the event of Ukip potentially  holding the balance of power in a hung parliament,   if a coalition of Labour and the Tories was formed  UKip  would be left out on a limb.

It is true that May has appointed three leading Breiteers   to posts which will either directly or indirectly impinge on the Brexit negotiations. David Davis (Minister for Brexit) ,  Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary), and  Liam Fox  (Minister for Trade Deals) to her cabinet .   Davis and Fox are long term Brexiters; Johnson is a Johnny come lately Brexiteer whose steadfastness on the issue is highly questionable.     But whatever they wish to do  these three will  probably be no  more than window dressing.

May has given Johnson a deputy  Alan Duncan who is a remainer and a close associate of May and has been known to refer to Johnson as ‘Silvio Borisconi’ .  Fox cannot agree any trade deals until the UK has left the EU and  David Davis is already at odds with May over her promise that Article 50 will not be activated until the devolved home countries have agreed to the terms of the deal agreed with the EU.

David Davis wants article 50  to be activated by the end of the year  while May has left the date uncertain because of her promise to Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland to agree what is to be sought from the EU before entering negotiations . This puts her directly at odds with Davis and probably Liam Fox and Johnson. There is also dissention in cabinet over when Article 50 will be activated.

Another sign  of May’s insincerity can be  found in her appointment of  Amber Rudd as home secretary. Immigration is issue which won matters most to the public. It is what won the election for the leave side. Yet May’s Home Secretary is soft on immigration . In addition, Rudd and Boris Johnson have suggested  that there should be no net immigration target since it cannot be met. Unless Brexit permits full sovereign control of our borders it will not be Brexit as the voters understood it.

With all this going against a clean and honest Brexit it is not too difficult to imagine Davis resigning or  being sacked long before the negotiations with the EU are concluded. Fox could follow him out. Johnson is such a slippery individual anything is possible including a Pauline conversion to EU membership.  It is possible that the negotiations could end up in the hands of remainers.

I am against using Article 50 because it allows the EU to control matters and leaves  the UK as an EU member for at least two years after  the Article is activated, but  Davis,   Johnson, and  Fox are all signed up to its use so at present  it seems   unlikely that an alternative  way of leaving  will be used.  However, it is possible that could change once the public realises that for several years the UK would not be able to control EU immigration and that EU directives including new ones have to be followed.  The only thing which can be said for Article 50 is that it in theory means there is no going back. Once activated the UK is irrevocably on the way out. Of course the EU has a record of breaking laws when it suits them it is not out of the question that  a combination of EU power brokers and Europhile MPs could simply cancel the UK activation of Article 50 and leave the UK in the EU.

There are two possible alternative means of leaving the EU .  Clause 62 of  the Vienna Convention on Treaties  might allow a much quicker departure (3 months) on the grounds of a fundamental and unforeseeable change of circumstances  but only if all the member states of the EU agree to it . I suspect that would end  either in denying the UK to depart because on the grounds of such a change of circumstances  or embroiling the UK in some form of long-winded arbitration.

The other option would be for  Parliament to  do what long term campaigner for the UK to leave the EU Lord Stoddart has proposed, namely, repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act  and amendments to start the ball rolling. I would support this  followed by legislation to  both assert the Sovereignty of Parliament (not strictly needed but a belt and braces approach is just as well bearing in mind our Europhile judges) and  give a certain legal status to existing EU inspired UK law which can then be kept, amended or repealed as Parliament decides.

The future is more than ordinarily uncertain but one thing is certain. We  know  May’s  “Brexit means Brexit” is in all probability  a  bouncing political cheque which she cynically issued knowing it would not be honoured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BREXIT – THE EU AND UK LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES


I was recently asked to do an article for the Solicitors Journal which is a highly respected Legal magazine. The brief was to set out my views on Article 50 and on the situation. Also as George Osborne had just said the UK can invoke Article 50 when it feels it is best placed to, to comment on that suggestion and the Brexit situation overall.

Here is my article. What do you think?

BREXIT – THE EU AND UK LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES


There are two constitutional legal procedures required to put into effect the democratically expressed Will of the People to Brexit.

One is the external requirement, under EU constitutional law, of activating Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 50 is simple to activate and it is entirely in the hands of the UK as a Member State to do so in accordance with UK constitutional arrangements. The “Royal Prerogative” gives that power to the Prime Minister.

Once Article 50 has been activated there is a compulsory 2 year period of negotiation managed by the EU Commission but if no agreement is reached, then the UK’s membership of the EU lapses automatically. (Bad luck Scotland, but nice try Nicola Sturgeon!).

The other constitutional procedure is internal. There must be a substantial repeal by the UK’s Westminster Parliament of the European Communities Act 1972 (perhaps with some saving provisions).

If Scotland held the threatened second Independence Referendum and voted to go, a third possibility would arise because if the UK, which is the EU Member State was dissolved then all parts of the former UK State would be automatically outside of the EU.

Over the course of the next few months up until mid-September we will witness the pattern of events revolve again around the machinations of the British Political elite. The critical political challenge for Brexit to actually occur is the Conservative Parliamentary Party’s decision as to which two contenders for leader will go onto the ballot for all Conservative Party members to vote on.

If Boris Johnson is on the ballot then it is a racing certainty that he will win the leadership and become the next Prime Minister.

If the plotters against him succeed in keeping him off the ballot paper, then it becomes doubtful as to who would win and it will then be still more doubtful as to what happens about Brexit. The future of the Conservative Party would then also have been put in doubt because all its Brexit voters will be absolutely furious and electorally unforgiving.

In the meanwhile, legislation based upon the EU has lost the privileged status which Lord Justice Laws gave it in his judgment against the Metric Martyrs in 2002. Laws LJ held that the Referendum in 1975 gave the People’s democratic consent to the European Communities Act 1972 and thus conferred special status upon it as a constitutional statute. That consent has now been removed and with it the special status of all that strand of law!

Here is a link to the article which the Solicitors Journal wrote partly based upon my comments >>> http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/public/administrative-and-constitutional/26932/uk-decides-when-trigger-article-50-not-eu-say-le

After the EU referendum

The battle has been won but not the war

Robert Henderson

The Europhiles threw a great deal at the EU referendum campaign.  There was the shameless   use of government resources especially those of the Treasury to propagandise for the Remain side. The governor of the Bank of England  enthusiastically supported the remain side.  EU panjandrums directed  dire threats  of what the EU would do to  Britain. A gigantic cast of the “great and the good” from finance, trade, industry, the media and politics (drawn from both Britain and abroad ) were daily paraded in front of the public like ancient  oracles forecasting  unalloyed disaster if Britain voted to leave the EU.  Leading Tories in the Remain camp cast aspersions on the character of those supporting Leave –  David Cameron even claimed that voting leave was immoral. Accusations of racism  were routinely levelled  against any leave supporter with a public voice  who addressed  the subject of immigration and the leave voters were labelled as xenophobes, bigots and racists.   Most contemptibly when the Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered   Remain supporters, including  MPs, attempted by implication or direct accusation to link the killing with the Leave side’s position on immigration.  So desperate were  the government  and Remain politicians generally  to ensure a vote to remain  that when the government web site which allowed people to register for a vote crashed two hours before the deadline  for registering,  Parliament did not hesitate to extend the deadline the next day  (by 24 hours not two) in the belief that it would mean many more young voters (who generally favoured remaining in the EU) would vote.

It says much for the strength of character of  the British that they refused to be cowed by this onslaught of propaganda and threats.  The Remain camp started with Project Lie, moved to Project Fear and ended with Project Slander as their accusations of racism became ever more shrill as polling day approached.  None of it worked.  Their  prophecies of doom were so frequent and so overblown that their hysterical warnings  ended up looking like caricatures produced by the Leave  side .  The only thing which stopped the Leave campaign’s momentum was the death of Jo Cox which stopped campaigning for three days just as the polls were consistently  showing increasing support for Leave.  This break in momentum probably cost Leave several percentage points in the final poll as for a few days the polls swung back towards Remain.

There was also a strong tendency for the Remainers  to patronise the leavers by implying or saying directly that only a bigoted blockhead who did not know better could vote to leave.   Nowhere was this mentality  shown  more strongly than over the subject of immigration.  The Remainers’  favoured tactics were simply to ignore the issue or, if forced to address it, to chant the mantras such as  “Immigrants have brought so much to our country” or  “Immigrants do the jobs which Britons won’t do”  or “The shortage of housing, school places and GPs  etc  is not down to immigration but the failure of government to provide the money to build more houses, schools  and GPs etc”.  As immigration was the issue  which troubled voters most  and especially troubled the white working class,  this was madness on the part of the Remain campaign. Clearly nothing has been learnt by the politically correct from Gordon Brown’s abuse of a working class  English pensioner Gillian Duffy  during the 2010  General Election when she complained  about the effects of mass immigration and Brown  was caught describing her as a bigot.

But it was not only the Remainers who wanted to  ignore or explain away the problems mass immigration brings. Many on the Leave side were just as squeamish when it came to immigration.  If it had not been for Nigel Farage having the courage to keep banging the immigration drum in all probability the referendum would have been lost.  The question of regaining sovereignty was a very strong and positive message, but on its own it is doubtful if it would have gained sufficient traction to lead to a win. What made it really  potent was when it was allied to controlling our own borders and stemming immigration.   The least politically sophisticated person could readily understand the message.

The battle but not the war is won

Gratifying as the referendum result is,  it was only  the first battle in the war to recover Britain’s sovereignty.

As things stand we are still subject to EU law until either we leave without an  agreement with the EU or fight our way through the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, something which would almost certainly take two years from its activation and which could be extended indefinitely in principle with the agreement of the European Parliament.  It is even conceivable that new members could be enrolled before Britain’s departure who would then have a say in what the terms for Britain would be. That is just one of the drawbacks to using Article 50. There are others which mean that  Article 50 is a poisoned chalice and should be avoided.   Let me quote it in full as it is short:

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  1. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Before I get to the practical difficulties of using Article 50 let me stamp on an idea floating within the disgruntled Europhile camp  that Britain could remain in the EU if no agreement was reached on the terms of leaving. This is not so.  Paragraph 3 of the Article runs” The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”  If there is no agreement and no extension of the negotiating time, Britain would simply leave and EU laws would cease to have effect.

The   drawbacks to using Article 50 are extensive.  To begin with it allows the EU to set the agenda and the pace of the negotiations. Until an agreement is reached or the leaving state simply leaves after two years of fruitless negotiation, Britain would  remain subject to   EU law. This  would mean, amongst other things, that Britain would have to continue to pay the £8  billion odd   to the EU that  they keep and the £6 bn odd  which the EU takes from us and then returns it to Britain with instructions  on how it is to be spent, Britain could not negotiate any treaties with countries outside of the EU and  British businesses would have to continue to implement EU imposed standards in areas such  as the  workplace  for example, the   hours worked. It would logically also mean that Britain was subject to any new EU laws passed during the negotiating period, for example, the EU might push through a transaction tax which would be utterly against Britain’s wishes.  Most importantly Britain would have to continue accept  migrants from the rest of the EU and probably other territories which  have free movement with the EU such as Norway or Switzerland .  Moreover,  the idea that Britain  would be leaving the EU  after two years  could provoke a massive upsurge in EU migration to these shores.

Europhile MPs

The other problem is the nature of Britain’s MPs. Most are Europhiles, as are a majority of the House of Lords. In principle the result of the referendum could be ignored – it is merely advisory not legally binding – by the Europhile majority in Parliament. That should  be politically impossible but there would be ample opportunity for the Europhiles to subvert the wishes of the British public more stealthily  by extending the length of time for  negotiation or by making agreements with the EU which would  stitch Britain back into the EU, for example, making immigration from the EU very easy.

If an agreement  which firmly attaches Britain to the EU once again is concluded one of two things could happen: either Parliament could accept in on a vote or a further referendum be held on the terms of the agreement with all the bullying associated with the EU when the public of a member makes the “wrong” choice the first time around.  The first would be overtly undemocratic and the second covertly undemocratic.

An alternative to an agreement between British politicians and EU politicians would be for  a major  party to campaign at a general election  for Britain to  withdraw from the leaving process and by doing so to remain in the EU. Whether  such a cancellation of Britain’s withdrawal would be legal is debatable, especially if Article 50 is activated because there is no procedure in the Article  for cancelling the article’s activation.  However, legal or not, the rest of the EU might be willing to accept the cancellation because this is really  about politics not law.

None of this is fanciful because there have already been suggestions from MPs, the most prominent being David Lammy of Labour , an ex-cabinet minister, has suggested that the Commons refuse to accept the result of the referendum   and Tim Farron, the leader of the LibDems has committed his party to standing on a platform to get Britain back into the EU.  There is also a petition on the government web site which is already in the millions demanding that the referendum result be deemed invalid (there is some doubt over the authenticity of large numbers of the signatures).

The next general election.

The question of when the next General Election is to be held looms over the post-referendum political world.    It could be soon, although because of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the House of Commons would have to pass a motion permitting an election less than five years after the last General Election. As this Tory government has a working  majority of only sixteen such a motion would need  to be supported by Labour. Whether that would suit Labour at present is extremely  dubious because the present chaos within the Party would almost certainly lose them many seats. But the other parties, including the Tories,  would probably  have many MPs against an early general election because there is a good chance that they could be punished by the voters either because they were for or against being  a member in the EU.  There are also many MPs with small majorities who would not welcome an election  because an MP with a small majority is always vulnerable to defeat. With nearly 4 years of this Parliament to run such MPs might well vote against an early election.  More generally, having run a general election campaign little more than a year ago parties may be short of money to run another.

If  there was sufficient support for an early election there would be  a halfway plausible  reason for having one. As  Cameron has resigned and a new Tory PM  is to be appointed by the Autumn,   a new election could represented as giving the new Tory regime electoral legitimacy.   But   it would be a rather weak argument because there is no  recent precedent for  governments calling a general election when prime ministers  are changed during the course of a Parliament. It did not happen when Gordon Brown took over from Blair, Major  succeeded  Thatcher  or when  Callaghan replaced Wilson. It would also be wholly exceptional for a general election to be called  so early in a Parliament (this one runs until 2020) for the purpose of validating a new PM.   Alternatively, a new General Election might be called because if defections, resignations or death   robbed the   Tory Party of a majority at some time in this Parliament..

But if an early election is not  called it is not inconceivable that the negotiation period could stretch deep into this Parliament or even past the 2020 date prescribed by the Fixed Term Parliaments  Act.  Implausible? Well, the first two years are almost certainly  accounted for if Article 50 is activated and it would not be that difficult to envisage Europhile British politicians colluding with EU politicians to string the matter out in the hope that time would change the political atmosphere in Britain sufficiently  to allow another referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU to be held and won by the Europhile side.

Other possibilities  would be  the election of a government comprised of one or more parties which  stood on a platform of  accepting  a  draft agreement  on offer from the EU  which would effectively  re-make Britain a member of the EU or of Britain withdrawing its application to leave  or  Britain re-applying to join the EU after leaving  it.

Because parties would have campaigned at an election for such policies any of these options could be implemented without a referendum.

What should happen?

Britain should not activate Article 50. Instead the  1972 Communities Act (the Act which gave legal force to  Britain’s membership of what became the EU)  should be repealed .  That would make the British Parliament sovereign again. Just to make sure there is no legal confusion  it would probably be advisable to enact a British sovereignty act to ensure that British judges cannot attempt to subvert Parliament’s intentions.  If  the Europhile majority in Commons refused to do this there would be a most serious constitutional crisis, the sort of crisis over which civil wars  are fought.  I doubt whether the Commons would risk that.  At  best such behaviour might well fracture parties and would sour the relationship between the electors and politicians for a long time.

The House of Lords is more problematical. They could  delay any legislation for around two years before the Parliament Act could  be used to force the legislation through. That would be a very dangerous path to go down for the Lords because it would probably result in their abolition. However, many peers might consider that a price worth paying and quite a few  both inside and outside of the Lords might see it as a solution to the anomaly of an unelected chamber  within the British political system.

Having repealed the 1972 Act and put any other necessary legislation  on the Statute Book, Britain would then be in the position of any other country outside the EU. They would negotiate with the EU on an equal basis without the EU controlling the agenda.  If the EU refuses to play ball Britain should simply trade under the WTO rules and conclude trade treaties as and when they are available and  advantageous to Britain.   Would the EU be obstructive?  I doubt it because  (1)  they have a massive trade surplus with the  Britain, (2) Britain is a partner in many  a pan-Europe enterprise ( for example, Airbus,  the European Space Agency) ,  (3) Britain is a very useful partner to have on the world stage because of her senior position in many international  bodies  (permanent member of the security council,  important member of the IMF, World Bank, Nato, G7, G20), (4) there are many  more  people from the other EU states in Britain  than there are Britons in the other EU countries and (5) the Republic of Ireland would be ruined if any serious protectionist measures aimed at Britain were enacted by the EU.  Most WTO tariffs  are low but where they are more substantial such as those attached to cars (around 10%) the odds are that the EU would rapidly make adjustments to those WTO tariffs  because they export so many cars to the UK.  The idea that nothing can be done quickly in terms of deciding the level of tariffs or their absence is obvious nonsense if  both sides want an agreement.

Britain’s negotiators, whether politicians or public servants, must be willing to play hardball. What is all too often not mentioned when tariffs being imposed by the EU  are discussed is that  Britain can impose reciprocal tariffs which would (1) bring in substantial amounts of tax and (2)  result in more British production going to the domestic British market.  The argument that Britain’s export  trade to the EU represent s  a much larger part of the British GDP than the other  EU states’ exports to the UK and consequently the EU would  not be damaged as much as the UK through a tariff war  does not hold water . This is because British exports to the EU are not spread uniformly throughout  the EU or  throughout individual members states’ economies.  Hence, the impact of  putting up barriers  to British exports would be very damaging to particular industries and areas  of EU member states. Think of the blow it would send to the German motor industry.

The repealing of the 1972 Act and what flows from it would have the great advantage of simplicity and above all speed.  Delay is the enemy of   those who want the wishes of the British people as expressed in the referendum to be honoured and the servant of those who wish to prevent Britain truly leaving the EU.  The longer the delay the more opportunity for fudge  and manipulation  by those with power.   Do not be misled by  politicians like Boris Johnson who led the Leave campaign and who will almost certainly  be at or near  the head of the government . Their embracing of the  Leave campaign  does not mean they will deal honestly with the British who voted to leave because they thought  that Britain would become truly sovereign again and above all be able  to control immigration.

Already there have been  British politicians who supported leaving the EU  who are saying that immigration will not be massively changed. For example,  Daniel Hannon a Conservative MEP and prominent Leave campaigner   told presenter Evan Davis on the BBC’s Newsnight programme: “Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed.” and admitted that  the price for remaining in a common market with the EU would be free movement of labour.  Boris Johnson himself has written a piece in the Telegraph saying that access to the single market would be available to the  UK after Brexit. That implies he would accept free movement of Labour for it is doubtful that EU would grant free access without mobility of Labour.

It is also noteworthy that the  line on immigration most pushed by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign was not that immigration would be reduced dramatically  per se, but that an Australian-style points system would be introduced. If such a system was used  without a cap on numbers coming each year,   immigration could soar. Imagine that 100,000 foreign  nurses  a year meet the criteria for nurses in the UK  and want to come to Britain,  a points-system without restrictions on numbers would potentially allow all  100,000 to come in.

One thing is certain amongst the current political upheaval in Britain, the Europhiles (who can come in Eurosceptic clothing)  will not lie down and accept the verdict of the referendum.  Those who want Britain to be an a sovereign state again must be ever vigilant as to what is being done by politicians both  here in Britain and abroad. There is a real danger of the Leave victory being stolen from us.

 

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)


Here is the text of our Brexit Press release:-

LEAVE WINS (ENGLAND VOTES TO LEAVE BUT OTHER NATIONS IN THE UK VOTE TO REMAIN)

The English Democrats delightedly welcome the result of the EU referendum as the majority of the People across the whole of the United Kingdom have democratically voted for the sensible option of leaving the EU. We especially welcome the result in England where we have been campaigning. In England the turnout was 73%, the highest of the 4 countries in UK and England has voted by 53.4% to leave the EU.

It is now incumbent upon David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin the process of disengagement from the EU. If, despite the result of the EU referendum, he is not prepared to do so then he should resign forthwith and not wait until October.

The important thing is that the democratic vote of the People should be honoured without reservation.

The English Democrats now call for those parts of the United Kingdom, namely Scotland and Northern Ireland whom have voted to Remain to have the democratic Will of that Nation and Province also honoured.

Under the current uneven Devolution arrangements the UK’s membership of the EU is a ‘reserved matter’ which means that has to be decided by Government of the United Kingdom, not by the devolved assemblies or parliaments.

The English Democrats support the right of the Nation and Province which voted to Remain to do so. We therefore call upon the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to not only to activate Article 50, but to negotiate to enable the Remain voting Nation and Province to Remain within the EU whilst England and Wales leaves.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I am delighted with the result of the EU referendum vote but concerned that David Cameron and his clique will now try to subvert the democratically expressed Will of the English People and of the Welsh People.”

Robin continued:- “As a democrat I am also calling for the democratic Will of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Peoples be fully honoured without reservation and that their Will to Leave or to Remain should be honoured.”

“For the English Democrats it is very clear that the United Kingdom is now dead. It is no longer possible to argue that Britain speaks with one voice. We will work to ensure that the will of the people of England is carried out. We believe in England not Britain.”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats