MENU

Redwood email

Dear Mr Redwood,

Thank you for taking the time to reply so quickly:
My name is Peter Brown.  I have been running theunituk.org.uk (previously theunituk.com) website since May, 2014.  The site was originally inaugurated by Trevor Colman MEP who was an ‘unaffiliated’ MEP under the UKIP Banner.  He chose not to be associated with UKIP in the European Parliament, but chose instead to spend his time educating various groups within the UK exactly what the European Union was doing to British Democracy, pretty much you and Mr. Rees-Mogg are doing in the UK Parliament.  Trevor Colman financed the site until his retirement in the last European Elections and employed three full time employees.  I had previously become involved in the live video shows and Rick Timmis, the Manager under Trevor decided that we should try to continue running the site.  Since then, Rick decided that it interfered too much with his family life which left me to carry on alone.  As a retired Building Surveyor, I had the time to do it alone but have since recruited a collaborator, Clive Taylor-Sholl who had been a regular contributor to the site and had also recently retired.  It is the considered opinion of this site that recent change of Premiership was a deliberate ruse on Mr Cameron’s part not to have to instigate the promise that he made to initiate the procedure for ‘Brexit’ because he had not expected it to happen in exactly in the same way that he thought that the Conservative Party would yet again be in a coalition Government with Clegg who would have given an excuse not to initiate a referendum.  Theresa May was manipulated into being the new Prime Minister with the express intention, whilst attempting to appease the the People that had voted to leave that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, had no intention at all to do so.
 
This preamble aside, I wish to explain some information that I have collated from various sources on this site.
 
There is much controversy as to when the new Prime Minister will initiate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start process of secession from the EU.  It is quite plain in Law that the right to do so is covered by Royal Prerogative and does not require the approval of Parliament.  It did not need anything other than such prerogative to sign us into various treaties without the consent of Parliament or the People for Heath to sign us up for the Treaty of Rome, nor for subsequent treaties such as Major for Maastricht nor even Brown that signed the Country up for the LIsbon Treaty even though that treaty, Brown knew, was just a reformatted version of the rejected ‘European Constitution’.  Yet, Mrs May insists upon muddying the waters by ‘consultations’ with devolved Parliament that are not required in Law but gives her the excuse to delay the initiation of Article 50.  You know and I know that it is just a delaying tactic in the hope that the whole ‘Brexit’ thing will just go away.
 
The fact is: the initiation of Article 50 is a moot point because all of the EU treaties are, in Law, illegal.  I am sure that you have heard these stories before and consider them to be conspiracy theories, but they have a sound basis in International Law.
 
This site has had an association with Rodney Atkinson (brother of Rowan) who attempted, in collaboration with Norris McWhirter to have Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude indicted for treason for signing the Maastricht Treaty without the express agreement of the British People.  The relevant charges can be found here. Mr Atkinson appeared on one of the ‘live’ internet chat shows featured on our site and the suit was discussed in detail (http://www.theunituk.org.uk/table-talk-2/).  Mr Atkinson reveals what the final decision from the CPS (at timeline 1:02:06 of the recording was: ‘That if treason had been committed, then the 1992 Act which ratified Maastricht, made that Treason legal’. which is plainly nonsense in Law because the committing of the Treason was illegal at the time that the act was committed.  Even if the spurious claim of the CPS could in any way be upheld in Law that a subsequent Act of Parliament made the treason legal.  It is clear that the decision made by the CPS and the Attorney General at the time to not allow the prosecution was a purely political act which deliberately circumvented the Law.
 
The following is an extract from a recent email to myself from Rodney Atkinson:
“The effect of the CPS and Attorney general not allowing the treason cases to proceed was indeed to say that “Treason was made legal”. Of course as we said – it was still treason at the time of the signing! And the treason acts were surely the prime example of that form of “constitutional act” which either cannot be repealed at all or only so through EXPLICIT repeal (which they were not)
 
Lord Justice Laws (who I had a brief word with recently when we met at the 600 year celebration of our old school’s foundation!) defined the nature of “constitutional acts” when he presided over the Metric martyr’s case.
 
He did say that he thought the treason cases taken by Norris and I were regarded by the judiciary as a damned good try to reverse Maastricht!!
 
I knew that anyway because Lord Denning praised them.”
 
Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaty Law is quite explicit.  In a recent article by Mr Atkinson, he explains that none of the treaties enacted on behalf of the European Union or its predecessors are legal on the grounds of ‘Jus Cogens’.  The article is reproduced here.  
 
It appears that under the principle of ‘Jus Cogens’, the signing of the Treaty of Rome and ALL subsequent Treaties are illegal and therefore, the question of initiating Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a moot point as the Laws governing the European Union are in themselves illegal and that the European Union does not exist as an entity.
 
Mr. Redwood, I am just a lay person with absolutely no training in Law, but logically, it occurs to me that a Judicial Review in the High Court could establish the legality of the situation because the ECJ would not legally be in supremacy of British Courts due to the fact that, Britain could not be part of a non-existent EU.
 
I am considering taking action myself either by Judicial Review on the legality of Britain being signed up for the EU, or possibly a Writ of Mandamus on the CPS with regard to Mr Atkinson’s ‘Treason’ case but I would welcome your advice on the matter.
Peter Brown
MENU
Powered by: Wordpress