Contradictingleigh?

Following what is being reported as a 'U-turn' by David Cameron at Brussels today Guido Fawkes reports that the 'Malcontents' are meeting in the office of Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough.


Edward Leigh is obviously against the idea that this country - and he - should be told what to do by any other organisation because writing here, he states:

"This centrality of parliamentary supremacy to the British constitution cannot be over emphasised. The Victorian constitutional scholar A. V. Dicey wrote that Parliament – that is the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons together – has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

This of course is the same Edward Leigh who made an impassioned speech in the Council of Europe, just days ago, in support of a resolution that will mean, in the due course of time, the people of this nation lose the right, if they so wish, to end their own lives by "assisted dying".


One rule for MPs and one for us..................

Transfers of Power

Preceding the meeting today between Merkel and Sarkozy - aka Merkozy - it would appear a disagreement has arisen between Iain Duncan Smith and Nick Clegg over the minutiae of the 'Referendum Act' and whether any treaty change would necessitate a referendum, with Cameron stepping in to state that there would only be a referendum "if a new treaty passes powers from UK to Brussels" adding that "as Prime Minister, I do not think the issue will arise".

Much is made of the subject of 'sovereignty' by politicians viz-a-viz our membership of the European Union; and it is therefore worthwhile considering exactly what sovereignty means. Hopefully, we can all agree that sovereignty means the ability of a nation to have supreme, independent authority within it's own territory, thus allowing it the power to make law affecting those within it's territory. Whether it concerns areas of foreign policy, immigration, or even how 'internal' matters are conducted; the minute a nation loses the right to decide any matter for itself it has suffered a loss of power - and if that loss is the result of those matters being decided by an alien 'organisation', then it has suffered a transfer of power. Since this nation has been a member of the European Union it has been subject to over thousands of rulings from that alien 'organisation' which has resulted in a transfer of power.

David Cameron has for some time been pushing the idea that in order to solve the 'euro crisis', the 17 eurozone nations should integrate and thereby accept central control of their fiscal policies. This well-thought-out policy (not) has the inherent danger that in a group of 27 members, 17 constitutes a majority and that such a majority could well impose a 'decision', one not wanted by the remaining 10. Any such 'decision' would then be binding on all 27 members and would, by nature of the concept of 'ever closer union' and 'harmonization', result in a transfer of power.

A transfer of power, under the designation of sovereignty above, is a transfer of power - there can be no degrees of transfers of power, which rather makes a mockery of the Referendum Act and the extremely careful wording with which that Act is written - but hey, we all know the reasons for that! The MSM - aka 'pretend' journalists - would have us believe that Cameron is therefore twixt the proverbial rock and a hard place, in that he either upsets the EU by granting a referendum on EU membership or he alienates his own backbenchers who, we are assured by said MSM, are largely 'eurosceptic'. Cameron is well aware that the supposed 'eurosceptics' are 'career politicians' and that they would follow their Party Whip in supporting whatever decision he makes in order to preserve their own 'careers', rather negates any worries from the rock/hard place. Of course, were he to grant a referendum it would shatter the Coalition 'accord' - which doesn't really exist, but I digress - and would result in his 'power-grab' in May 2010 having been for nought (and yes,make no mistake, Cameron is a 'career politician' too!).

Needless to say it won't be until the forthcoming 'Heads of States' meeting at the end of this week is concluded that we will know exactly 'how much further down the river we have been sold'. The fact that it should be the people who decide whether any new treaty/arrangement is acceptable, rather than a political elite, matters not.

Of course, were to to have a system of democracy that combined 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - but yet again I digress....................

Just saying...................

Repatriation of powers: really?

The Daily Telegraph carries a report that David Cameron has ordered a review, involving every government department, of every aspect of the UK's membership of the European Union, with a view to creating a 'menu of demands' where repatriation of powers are concerned. Coupled with the Daily Telegraph article, the Mail (bless it's socks) carries a report that more than two-thirds of people believe the European Union is 'over-mighty.

At the risk of being accused of needless repetition - it ain't going to happen for one reason and one reason only: 'Acquis Communautire', a term which means that competences (or powers), once ceded to the EU, can never be returned. That Cameron can propose and allow to continue this fallacy is but disingeniousness on his part - a characteristic of which he has prior form. That the media can also propagate this idea, with no attempt that I have seen to question the possibility that this can be achieved, is an act of negligence on their part.

Let us digress for a moment and consider 'sovereignty', 'self-governance' and 'political power'. 'Sovereignty' is generally held to be the ability of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory, ie a nation. It can also be said that 'sovereignty' has always been defined as the ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens, thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state. 'Self-governance' is generally held to be the ability to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter. 'Power', in the political sense, is held to be the ability of a section of society which is elected to administer some, or all, public resources including defense of the realm. (Let us not, at this moment, enter into a discussion about 'administer' and 'dictate'). That the UK's membership of the European Union means that it is unable to qualify for just one of those terms means that Cameron and the rest of the political class, who maintain we 'must' remain a member of the EU, are in effect guilty of treasonous behaviour in that, without the people's consent, they have ceded, elsewhere, the ability of the UK to decide its own future.

And that, dear reader, is why first we need to slaughter our political elite and then tell the European Union that they need to indulge in the dance known as a 'Foxtrot', adding the word 'Oscar'!

Update: As has been pointed out to me the second paragraph has been badly worded - the "acquis communautaire" is just the body of law. It, itself does not prevent the repatriation of powers.  What does that is the Commission's monopoly of the power of initiation, combined with its role as guardian of the treaty.  Since it requires a law to repeal a law, and the Commission will never repeal a law unless it is replaced with another one, this ensures that the acquis continues to grow. However, this only applies to competences already defined in the treaties. There is nothing, in theory, to stop the member states reducing the Commission's powers (and thereby the acquis) with an amending treaty. In practice, though, that isn't going to happen.