Why Should Britain be in the EU

[Phoenix One]

What follows is lengthy, but I trust the significance is not lost.

 

Quote:

 

Bill of Rights and new written Constitution.

 

An open letter from Anne Palmer

 

Dear Lord Onslow,

 

Re Proposed new Bill of Rights and possibly a new written Constitution.

 

I have already expressed my concerns about the proposals for a new written Constitution and a Bill of Rights yet I feel it important to write once more.

 

We already have a Constitution of our own plus a Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 that has been referred to many times in the recent past. Magna Carta has been the envy of the world, so much so that others have copied it.

 

No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. What Parliament does however, Parliament can undo.

 

The Treaty of Magna Carta is between the people and the Crown and Parliament may not alter it. See also the people‟s Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. To get round this however, it appears that the Government may have realised that either Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II (The Crown) would have to repeal them, which she either obviously has not be asked to do, or has been asked and has refused, or perhaps the alternative is to ask the other „parties to the Treaty‟, “the people” to repeal them by allowing a referendum on this matter. Get the people to vote enthusiastically „FOR‟, what will be for the very first time in the history of this Country, a written constitution and a new Bill of Rights that will have been drawn up especially for the people. Regrettably this is also from the same Government that has turned our Nation into the most spied on, probably in the world, with the greatest loss of liberties and freedoms other countries once so envied. Sadly, British people, including women, children and babies died in that last war in order to keep those freedoms and liberties rather than be governed by foreigners. I pray they do not have to do so again.

 

Not explained fully to the people, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 holds the Oath of Allegiance to which British Governments and the rest of us swear to the Crown. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason. I therefore object to any dislodging or repealing of our Common Law Constitution.

 

Would a new Oath be brought forward in a “yes”? To swear allegiance to “The State” to make it ever more powerful? Or, as Lisbon would have it, make us real citizens of the European Union, so our allegiance will be to the European Union in future?

 

The proposed new Bill of Rights spells out clearly the people‟s “duties”. The Government and the EU appear to think the people have a need to know their “Duties”. The people do not have “Duties” as such because the people vote and contribute towards their MP‟s pay and expenses and through them, also to the EU. Our MP‟s are supposed to “speak for us” (Their duty) which they appear to have forgotten long, long ago. It is the Governments duty to instigate our Laws and to obey our own Constitution. All the people have to do is remember their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown, to protect and be true to the wearer of that Crown. The people do their Duty when and if the time comes when they are conscripted to go into battle to save the Crown, this Country and all in it from being taken over by foreign rule.

 

It really does not matter what is in the proposed new written Constitution or new Bill of Rights for when the next Government comes in, both can be repealed although perhaps foolish if the people actually voted FOR them. However, it must be remembered that even if the people voted for both, if Lisbon is activated those new RIGHTS and Constitution will be over-ridden straight away by the EU.

 

Has our Prime Minister in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty (See EU Citizenship) committed himself to eventually transferring the “loyalty” of 60 million people from the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to “loyalty” to the European Union? (See also EU Commissioners Oath) Does he and the EU expect all the people of Britain to turn their backs on their Queen (Crown), for our Prime Minister to „force‟ 60 Million people to violate their Oaths they themselves have taken or by birth or through living here in the UK, without the people‟s agreement? We read in the papers that Her Majesty was “dismayed” when SOCA through new legislation, did not swear allegiance to the Crown. I write, “force” deliberately, because the people have been denied a say on the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon.

 

What is in our Bill of Rights and Magna Carta that makes me, along with so many more people, so want to keep them? I have in mind that Judges have to look to EU Treaties that Government has ratified, al-be-it remembering that our Constitution is like the foundations of a building, add to it and it still stands, alter the foundations or remove (or ignore) them as is happening now and the whole building will tumble.

 

I found it difficult to understand the extremely harsh treatment metered out to the three Fishermen as described in Christopher Booker‟s column Sunday 3rd August 2008. Apparently it was reported that, “When they were caught by a year-long agency “entrapment” operation, Judge Neil McKittrick not only imposed crippling fines totalling £42,500, with costs of £27,646, but also agreed to confiscations of their assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to a total of £213,461. Unless this is paid within months they (allegedly) face two years in prison”.

 

Yet nowhere could I find the EU pressing for such extortionate fines and loss of livelihood and or homes for these men. When it comes to punishment therefore our Constitution should have been to the fore. Our Bill of Rights 1688/9 makes clear, “That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Clause 29 Magna Carta makes clear that “for a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a Royal Court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood”. These are from our Constitution, the law above the law, the foundations upon which all other laws are or should, be built. Perhaps the Fishermen‟s cases should be challenged, but the present costs to do so are often too high. That too should be looked into for is it really “Justice” not to be able to afford to “challenge”. I have only written this one case to confirm a point but the cases I could record are many, especially these type below.

 

Where I wonder is, „innocent until proven Guilty‟ in this land of ours? The introduction of “Instant Fines” removes the one thing that separated us from the continental system. Was that why it was done? Especially for anyone choosing to go

to Court then has to pay far more if found guilty. So much easier to pay the fine and “have done with it”. Soon, perhaps everyone will have a conviction and have a „criminal record‟. The danger then becomes, “they have nothing to lose any more”.

 

I just hope and pray that these fishermen are not victims of the financial state our Country is in at present, for are the people to pay, one way or another, even to becoming “criminals” if they leave a waste bin lid slightly open? By filling it too full? Putting rubbish in the wrong container? Dropping accidentally a sweet wrapper? So many things responsible people are AFRAID of accidentally doing and a fear of even saying the wrong thing. Afraid even to go and help some-one, to even touch some-one. Too afraid to help and comfort a weeping distressed child. Afraid even of FEAR itself. All because our own Constitution has been set aside by a Government we once trusted. There is now however, a deep and repressed anger within the people that was not there before.

 

Is anyone going to tell the 60 million people of this Country that they have no Constitution? That it has been, unbeknown to them, destroyed/over-ridden? If that is the case, tell the people NOW. Most certainly tell Her Majesty and then tell the rest of her Majesty‟s Commonwealth? Tell the Judiciary who sit in front of the Royal Coat of Arms? When was it repealed exactly? Was it as long ago as 1972? Was it when the Queen too was made a citizen of Europe? Did it end in the ratification of “Lisbon”? Did a temporary British Government destroy our Constitution, our whole way of life for deeper integration into a European Union the vast majority of people do not want? Is our Government going to continue with the charade of a new Bill of Rights and a written Constitution that will be overridden by the Treaty of Lisbon? Has this Government told the people even the Crown‟s Sovereign Government can be over-ruled by the European Court of Justice?

 

I suggest that the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon should be withdrawn before all 27 Countries ratify it and a referendum be put before the people, rather that now than what may follow, or hope and pray that the people of Ireland reject it once more.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Copy to all on the debate.

As this is about our Constitution this is an open letter. Anne Palmer JP.

[Mr Prime]

The above comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of 'Euroscepticism'. The term does not necessarily mean the belief that the UK should withdraw from the EU. Mrs Thatcher and most of her Eurosceptic cabinet ministers were not 'withdrawal Eurosceptics' in the UKIP sense. What Thatcher and her Eurosceptic supporters were against was deeper European integration, such as monetary and political union. In this sense, Thatcherite Euroscepticism has entered the mainstream, in that most of the current Conservative party (including of course Cameron and Haigh) are against deeper European integration. Moreover, the Labour governments from 1997 to 2010 also espoused Eurosceptic ideas in various forms (consider for example the 'red lines' insisted upon by Labour governments during the various EU treaty negotiations during this period).

 

OK but are there any Erosceptic movements worth commenting on in the UK?

[VideoPro]

Ee dun't half rattle, that Phoenix One. Has a bit of an issue wi' forriners in my view.

 

Anyrooad, a'am knees deep in that Europe stuff, me. Yer should see t'lasses in Hamburg, Montpelier or Prague. Smashin' sights an'all. A'm not comin' back.

 

By 'way Phoenix, tha can get thee Heinz Baked Beans owwer 'ere ont' continent, so tha wain't starve or nowt.

[Phoenix One]

Ee dun't half rattle, that Phoenix One. Has a bit of an issue wi' forriners in my view.

 

Anyrooad, a'am knees deep in that Europe stuff, me. Yer should see t'lasses in Hamburg, Montpelier or Prague. Smashin' sights an'all. A'm not comin' back.

 

By 'way Phoenix, tha can get thee Heinz Baked Beans owwer 'ere ont' continent, so tha wain't starve or nowt.

 

Hi ,

 

No, I don't have problems with Europe. However, some people do confuse Europe and EU being the same thing. They are not. I am anti-EU not anti-Europe.

[Longcol]

What follows is lengthy, but I trust the significance is not lost.

 

 

Lenghty drivel without any significance.

[waldershelf]

OK but that is a matter of opinion not necessarily fact. You may be right that a referendum would swing again but most people don't know what they are talking about. I would never want a referendum to be left to the great British public, most of whom have no interest in politics and get their info from tabloids. I would only support a referendum if anyone wanting to vote had to prove they had been to night school to study the subject for a week or two. I would want people to know the facts not impressions.

 

That sort of thinking puts the whole idea of democracy, general elections, local government and the the election of officials at the local working men's club into a cocked hat. It takes us right back to the days before general emancipation when only the gentry could vote in parliamentary elections. Robert A Heinlein wrote an excellent book called Starship troopers (not to be confused with the dreadful film of the same name) which explores the idea of "earning" the right to vote in a post modern society. Personally I think we should have more referenda on important matters and not simply rely on the political party with the best spin once every 5 years to make decisions for us. It would be a step towards true democracy and seems to work quite well for the Swiss, (who are not in the EU).

[waldershelf]

I would trust a knowledgeable politician over a tap room tabloid reader any day.

 

I wouldn't trust a "knowledgeable politician" to buy a pint of milk with my money.

[LordChaverly]

OK but are there any Erosceptic movements worth commenting on in the UK?

 

The point I was making is that 'Euroscepticism (although not 'withdrawal Euroscepticism' of the UKIP kind) has now been absorbed into the political mainstream in the UK. This is worth commenting on, as is the fact that all of the available evidence from public opinion polls (including those commissioned by the EU) indicates that a majority of UK citizens do not want deeper European integration.

[Tony]

Annual Costs of EU Membership

The net cost of the EU to Britain is £20 billion pa. But the actual cost is much more than that.

 

The European Union costs us £65 billion gross every year.

Citation please.

 

At these costs what do we actually get out of it?

 

An additional £700m since 2000 in South Yorkshire.

[LordChaverly]

Citation please.

 

 

 

An additional £700m since 2000 in South Yorkshire.

 

Tony, the above show just how meaningless, or misleading, bald statistics can be.

 

If we take the first figure quoted of £65 billion a year, this sounds a lot (even if it was correct, which it almost certainly isn't), but it sounds much less if measured against the UK's GDP, which is currently around £2.2 trillion, i.e. £2,200 billion). This makes the figure quoted less than 3% of UK GDP. However, as I said, the figure is highly dubious and is based no doubt on a lot of speculation and questionable assumptions. It certainly does not derive from UK contributions to the EU budget, currently running at around £6 billion a year. I have seen figures like this before and usually they are based on projected savings from imports (such as food) which we could buy on world markets rather than from the EU. As I say above, these projected savings are speculative and, in my view, are impossible to put a precise figure on.

 

The figure relating to the financial benefits derived from the EU budget are also misleading, unless set against the opportunity cost of the UK not contributing to the EU budget (and, as is well known, the UK has put more into the EU budget in every year since 1973).