Editorial – It appears that Lord Stoddard’s advice is not strictly pertinent.

13-House-of-Lords-AFP-Gettyv2 (1)

Whereas I have previously recommended a repeal of the European Communities Act:1972, with regard to the integrity of the information disseminated by this site, I feel that I must make the readership aware of further information that I have received on the subject of the repeal. I know that it will not be welcome to so many of you that have commented on the website upon Lord Stoddarts assertion to repeal the Act. ( but, unfortunately, it appears to not be the correct advice as it stands though it appears that it will be inevitable that we shall need to repeal parts of it as the situation progresses and before the end of the Article 50 negotiations.

On the subject of the right of the Prime Minister to declare the act of secession and thereby open ‘Article 50’ negotiations without recourse to a Parliamentary debate or approval, it has become perfectly clear that the Prime Minister has the right of ‘Royal Prerogative’ to do so in exactly the same way that we were brought into the EU without the consent of Parliament and the signing of subsequent treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon. See our article; This conclusion was illustrated by the ‘tweet’ by Martin Howe QC (illustrated in the above article) from his website: Lawyers for Britain. A visit to this website clearly lays out certain procedures that have to come about with regard to ECA:72 that should be followed in order to facilitate the Article 50 procedure but repealing the ECA:72 appears to NOT be the correct procedure. Those that want a clearer picture of how ECA:72 affects those negotiations can be found at by following the links through the series.

Having read the ‘Hansard’ report on the House of Lords debate (, it is clear that the ECA:72 is NOT a route to nullify our membership of the EU but merely required the procedure needed to implement the succession. It is also clear that much of the ECA:72 requires positive action by Parliament in preparation for the actual secession to go ahead without delay and must be implemented before the actual secession.

Although there is clearly considerable opposition to the result of the referendum within the ‘Lords’ notably from LibDem Peers, there also seems to be a consensus that they do not wish to abdicate their prerogative to the Judiciary. It is up to us to lobby our respective MPs to require them to recognise the will of the People in Parliament. No matter how Europhile those MPs are, I doubt that many of them could weather the loss of a vote from a majority that voted for a secession without it being disrupted by the arrogance of Parliamentarians that have no regard for democracy. But, most of all, we must prevail upon those Conservative Party members that have the right to choose the next Prime Minister that to chose Mrs May will represent a retrograde step towards more of the same dislocation between the Electorate and Parliament.

This exercise must be more than regaining our sovereignty from the European Union. it must be about taking steps to attempt to regain our right as British People to have Parliament reflect our wishes and not their own selfish undertakings.

Peter Brown

Leave a Reply

Help put the World to rights and leave a Comment

Notify of
Clive Taylor-Sholl

Has therefore, the 31st March deadline to fulfil the actual secession, which has not been mentioned, have any bearing on the urgency to go ahead without delay. As implementing the Article 50 procedure before the Lisbon Treaty is complete will not require QMV approval to divorce the UK from the EU? Is that correct?

Powered by: Wordpress
%d bloggers like this: