The British Government in General and Mrs. May in particular are being entirely disingenuous in their statement to the British People that to follow the Article 50 route following Brexit is the only ‘Legal’ way to leave the European Union. It is simply not true.
Since the 27th January, 1980 when Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 1961 came into force, it became illegal under International Law for Nation States to make treaties between themselves that conflicted with International ‘peremptory norms’ or were in conflict with National Law that had not been specifically repealed. It is considered that Parliament is sovereign and may not be compelled by any previous administration but Parliament is sovereign in all things except to diminish the sovereignty of Parliament. It seems that for the past 40 years, Parliament has done nothing but greatly diminish its own sovereignty by giving away its sovereignty and the supremacy of British Law.
Although when Edward Heath signed Britain up to the European Economic Community in 1972, the European Communities Act was in contravention of the terms of the Vienna Convention because it abrogated International ‘Peremptory norms’ (Jus Cogens) as it diminished National sovereignty, it was presented to the British People fraudulently (and consequently not in ‘good faith’) and was in contravention of the Treason Act of 1351, the Vienna Convention (VCLT) although previously signed and ratified by Britain in June 1971 had not yet come into force and therefore, the forfeiture of sovereignty and the ‘implied’ repeal of the Treason Act was allowed by the Government and the Judiciary to stand.
A ‘peremptory norm’ is that which most Governments would consider to be natural law and is inviolable. It is known by the term; Jus Cogens (Latin- Compelling Law). National sovereignty is considered to be just such a law. Indeed Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state … .” The International Court of Justice. Another such tenet is that it is also necessary that the Principles of ‘Good Faith’ are applied. In other words, no treaty can be considered legal if one or other of the Parties should misrepresent or hold back vital information that would seriously affect the outcome of the Treaty. There is no doubt that the Heath Government and the European Community were complicit in convincing the Electorate that joining the Community would not entail ‘the loss of any significant sovereignty’ when in fact, the intention all along was to work towards a Federal State of Europe with complete control over all of its subjects.
It is now well know that Harold McMillan and Edward Heath conspired together with Jean Monnet as ‘Internationalists’ to bring Britain into what would eventually be a Federalised Europe as a prelude to a ‘World’ Government. Indeed, Jean Monnet considered to be the Father of the EU, wrote to a friend on 30th April 1952: “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation” . It is also known that Lord Kilmuir, the then Lord Chancellor, wrote to Edward Heath telling him that signing Britain up for the EEC would cause considerable harm to National Sovereignty (a facsimile of the original document, FCO 30/1048:1971 is reproduced <click here> for download). The document was suppressed by the Heath Government under the ’30 years rule’. There is no doubt that these actions removed any semblance of ‘good faith’ with regard to the EEC Treaty. The treaty was signed before the VCLT came into force, but it is highly likely that Heath was aware that he was in breach of the ‘spirit’ of the Law.
It is also a requirement that a Treaty is not legal if it was entered into by the use of an ‘implied’ repeal of a Law. Under the VCLT, it is a requirement that a Law upon which the treaty is based requires being repealed, it must be ‘Specifically’ repealed. There is no doubt that Heath signed the Treaty in the full knowledge that to do so would be in breach of the 1351 Treason Act WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Indeed, the Act was used in 1949 to hang William Joyce, the infamous ‘Lord Haw Haw’ after the Second World War. Heath, and indeed, Harold Wilson may well have argued that the signing of the Treaty ‘implied’ that the Treason Act had, in effect been repealed but both would very likely have known this not to be the case as they would have been made aware of the situation even though the VCLT had not then been brought into force.
What IS known is that every subsequent treaty signed after January 1980 would have been illegal under International Law. These include: Schenghen:1985 Though not signed by Britain which allowed for the removal of internal borders and free movement; The Single European Act:1986. The Single European Act (SEA) was the first major revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The Act set the European Community an objective of establishing a single market by 31 December 1992, and codified European Political Cooperation, the forerunner of the European Union‘s Common
Timeline of the EU Treaties.
Foreign and Security Policy. It was signed at Luxembourg on 17 February 1986, and at The Hague on 28 February 1986. It came into effect on 1 July 1987, under the Delors Commission; Maastricht:1992, Amsterdam:1997 and Nice:2001 established the EC (European Community), the ‘4 Pillars’ of the EU, Justice and Home Affairs legislation, Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The Lisbon Treat:2007 was an almost word for word rehash of the rejected European Constitution that had been ‘abandoned’ following its rejection in referenda by the French and Dutch.
|All EU Treaty States (excluding EFTA) are Signatories to the VCLT with the exception of France|
There is no means of forcing a Nation State to comply with International Law (except, perhaps, by force of arms) but Britain was one of the original signatories to the VCLT and was morally obligated to comply with the Convention but it did not by signing the various European Union Treaties, certainly after January 1980. It is significant that all Nation States within the EU are signatories, with the exception of FRANCE, of the Vienna Convention.
All subsequent Governments after January were aware, or aught to have been aware of the terms of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties but it did not suit the personal ambitions of our current crop of ‘career’ politicians who have personally done very well, or hope to do very well out of Britain’s continued Membership of the EU. Whether it be by direct employment by the EU or from subsequent employment by those Corporations that benefit so much by their lobbying of the Commission.
Mrs. May who appears to be so cognizant of legality with regards to the secession of Britain must have been advised of the consequences of Britain’s Membership of the EU with regard to the VCLT. If, as she maintains, that the Law must be upheld with regard to Britain’s secession, then she is duty bound to consider that Britain was brought illegally (according to International Law) into the EU. At the very least, she must be aware that all subsequent treaties signed by a British Government after January 1980 should have no effect. And, therefore, there is no legal requirement to follow the procedures with regard to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
It has become obvious that the EU wish to make things as difficult for us as they can before we finally secede, especially now that Guy Verhofstadt, the Arch-Federalist and hater of everything that Britain stands for is now appointed to the EU negotiating team. The first warning came from the EU Trade Commissioner a few weeks ago was the demand that Britain must not start to negotiate any Trade Deals prior to secession. Then, came the same warning from Juncker followed this week by a direct warning from Frau Merkel. It is becoming increasingly apparent that to follow Article 50 procedure is to lead Britain into an economic trap. The only obvious intention of the EU is to leave Britain with no International Trade Deals at the point of secession from the EU. The only conclusion that can be made from this is to leave Britain in a form of ‘limbo’ in which it must start from ‘square one’ in establishing trade and, at the same time, leaving Britain in a vulnerable position when it comes to ‘negotiating’ the fait accompli that the EU will give us at the end.
Though no doubt already aware of it that the Article 50 route is NOT THE ONLY LEGAL ROUTE OUT OF THE EU, to claim such suits May’s purposes as she can use it to delay Britain’s departure or perhaps, despite her assurances, allow the whole issue to be ‘kicked into the long grass’. John Redwood is trying to persuade the Government to just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act but is, no doubt, receiving the same reply that Britain has only one legal route out. It concerns me also that Redwood too is aware of the legality issue too because I have written to him with the facts but he refuses to make use of it.
The World is shewing us that they are ready to start trading with us but we are prevented from doing so, not only by the EU, but by yet again our own Government in their intransigence. Should we force the Government to admit to the illegality of the EU Treaties under International Law or, at the very least, force them to have to explain why they do not admit to it.
The EU have shewn their hand even though May refuses to shew her ‘negotiating strategy’ (though it is doubtful that she actually has one). The EU wishes to keep Britain in their clutches for as long as possible to not only continue to reap the benefit of the EU’s second largest nett contributor but also to hold Britain inside a rapidly diminishing EU Market and having to comply with all of their edicts. Most of Europe’s economies are in dire straits. Many of its major banks including the European Central Bank are in severe difficulties with even Germany’s major banks operating at over 90% losses from last year. ALL may require major cash investment in the near future and because Britain has the most effective economy in Europe at the moment, it is highly likely that we will be forced to contribute massive amounts of money and bear the brunt of Europe’s own ineptitude.
The only course for Britain is to declare that the signing of EU Treaties was illegal under international law, repeal the 1972 Act and get the hell out of Dodge. Britain has the opportunity to open many new trading avenues with the rest of the World, Though we are at present being harassed by the EU Politicians in their pique, it is highly likely that the Corporations that really run the EU will take an entirely different and pragmatic attitude and quickly force open trade between us and the EU before it is too late for them.
Britain must then stop sending any more money to the EU, use a small amount of the savings to immediately pay off all outstanding ‘grants’ to the UK and leave the EU to indulge in a period of deep thought as to whether they wish to continue as an entitly.
Theresa May must decide whether she wished to continue to be Prime Minister after May 2020. She has the stark choice of whether to play along with the game that the EU and Eurosceptic MPs are playing or accept the sincere overtures of the many Nations that are not only offering trade but the expertise in which to achieve it. To do this, she must acknowledge that Membership of the EU is, at best, legally dubious and continue to defy the EU or; preferably suggest that an early General Election is possible with the probable result that many of the MPs that refuse to accept the referendum result will be looking for new jobs in the near future. An early General Election is probably the only time in British history that Parliament will have the chance to be mainly controlled by Members of Parliament that have finally realised that the wishes of the Electorate are to be obeyed.
Those wishes must be made known to her without any ambiguity else She is likely to ignore them. Some weeks ago, I asked you all to sign a petition in order to force the Government to discuss the matter in open Parliament and have her explain the situation. When I last checked, the petition had only 64 signatures. There is only around 4 months left before the petition is removed, well short of the time that May says she intends to initiate Article 50 and there will be then, no chance to hold the Government to account unless the petition gets considerably more support than it is getting of late.
If you haven’t already signed it, please do so <click here> and have as many people that you know do the same. The alternative for Britain does not bear thinking about unless the People continue to make our majority wishes felt.
P.S, There are number of petitions in this other article <click here> including the above petition. The Government has been very cavalier with our safety and sovereignty and we must hold them to account by forcing them to acknowledge the problems. Please take a little time to sign them all.