<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The government tries to silence Parliament</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:05:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Denis Cooper</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1343</link>
		<dc:creator>Denis Cooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1343</guid>
		<description>MPs can&#039;t change the treaty itself for a very simple reason - because it isn&#039;t their treaty to change. 
 
It&#039;s an agreement between 27 states, with their heads of state and/or government as the &quot;High Contracting Parties&quot;, signed in our case by two Ministers acting as the Queen&#039;s &quot;plenipotentiaries&quot;, ie granted full powers by Her, to represent Her and exercise the Royal Prerogative on Her behalf. 
 
Equally, because it&#039;s an external agreement made by the British government it can&#039;t have any effect in our internal law until Parliament has passed a Bill saying that it shall have such effect, and the Queen has given Her Royal Assent to that Bill, making it an Act. 
 
Parliament is under no legal or moral obligation to pass that Bill. If Parliament had given its approval to the Treaty prior to signature that might be a different matter, but even then Parliament could change its mind. 
 
If there was any provision included in the Bill which would limit the application of the agreed Treaty to the UK, in such a way that any of the other 26 states could object that their rights under the Treaty had been materially diminished, then no doubt they would object and they would insist on a re-negotiation to restore the balance between their rights and their obligations. 
 
On the other hand, Parliament could and should repudiate the attached Declaration 17, which flagrantly denies the sovereignty of our Parliament by espousing the fundamentally incompatible legal doctrine of the primacy of EU treaties and laws - a theory which was no more than the invention of federalist lawyers at the EU&#039;s Court of Justice, exceeding the powers granted to them under the original Treaty of Rome - without the rejection of that doctrine in itself having any material effect on the rights of the other EU states. 
 
See Christopher Booker&#039;s Notebook today: 
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nbooker110.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n...&lt;/a&gt; 
 
New Clause 9,  tabled by Bill Cash MP, would in effect repudiate Declaration 17:: 
 
&quot;Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.&quot; 
 
In the event that this amendment joins the dozens of others which are not being debated, let alone put to a vote, an Early Day Motion would provide a mechanism for those MPs who are still loyal to this country to clearly express their determination that their (and our) Parliament will retain its legal supremacy in the United Kingdom. 
 
Reply: as a co-signatory to Bill Cash&#039;s amendment I am keen to have a vote on it. An EDM is no help - any MP who agrees with us can just sign the amendment, which increases the chances of it being debated. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MPs can&#039;t change the treaty itself for a very simple reason &#8211; because it isn&#039;t their treaty to change. </p>
<p>It&#039;s an agreement between 27 states, with their heads of state and/or government as the &quot;High Contracting Parties&quot;, signed in our case by two Ministers acting as the Queen&#039;s &quot;plenipotentiaries&quot;, ie granted full powers by Her, to represent Her and exercise the Royal Prerogative on Her behalf. </p>
<p>Equally, because it&#039;s an external agreement made by the British government it can&#039;t have any effect in our internal law until Parliament has passed a Bill saying that it shall have such effect, and the Queen has given Her Royal Assent to that Bill, making it an Act. </p>
<p>Parliament is under no legal or moral obligation to pass that Bill. If Parliament had given its approval to the Treaty prior to signature that might be a different matter, but even then Parliament could change its mind. </p>
<p>If there was any provision included in the Bill which would limit the application of the agreed Treaty to the UK, in such a way that any of the other 26 states could object that their rights under the Treaty had been materially diminished, then no doubt they would object and they would insist on a re-negotiation to restore the balance between their rights and their obligations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Parliament could and should repudiate the attached Declaration 17, which flagrantly denies the sovereignty of our Parliament by espousing the fundamentally incompatible legal doctrine of the primacy of EU treaties and laws &#8211; a theory which was no more than the invention of federalist lawyers at the EU&#039;s Court of Justice, exceeding the powers granted to them under the original Treaty of Rome &#8211; without the rejection of that doctrine in itself having any material effect on the rights of the other EU states. </p>
<p>See Christopher Booker&#039;s Notebook today:<br />
  <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nbooker110.xml" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n&#8230;</a> </p>
<p>New Clause 9,  tabled by Bill Cash MP, would in effect repudiate Declaration 17:: </p>
<p>&quot;Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.&quot; </p>
<p>In the event that this amendment joins the dozens of others which are not being debated, let alone put to a vote, an Early Day Motion would provide a mechanism for those MPs who are still loyal to this country to clearly express their determination that their (and our) Parliament will retain its legal supremacy in the United Kingdom. </p>
<p>Reply: as a co-signatory to Bill Cash&#039;s amendment I am keen to have a vote on it. An EDM is no help &#8211; any MP who agrees with us can just sign the amendment, which increases the chances of it being debated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1342</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1342</guid>
		<description>Mr Redwood,  To my knowledge the numbering of the articles have been changed three times. and how about article like this one?  36) The text of Article 17 shall become Article 28 A, it shall be amended as set out below in point 49. 
49) An Article 28 A shall be inserted, taking over the wording of Article 17, with the following amendments: 
(a) the following new paragraph 1 shall be inserted and the next paragraph shall be 
renumbered 2: etc, etc and so it goes on. 
 
Does it meet the criteria of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties?   I certainly do not think so.  Having read the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I do believe that Members of Parliament have a duty to really look at the Treaty in the light I have mentioned and if they believe that people may not be able to understand this Treaty that will affect the lives of every one throughout this our Country for generations to come, it should either go before the convention now with a challenge or rejected by those &quot;Honourable&quot; Members that sit (for now) in those hallowed Halls. 
 
Have ALL Heads of State had sight of the Contents or was a blank sheet of paper signed by them. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Redwood,  To my knowledge the numbering of the articles have been changed three times. and how about article like this one?  36) The text of Article 17 shall become Article 28 A, it shall be amended as set out below in point 49.<br />
49) An Article 28 A shall be inserted, taking over the wording of Article 17, with the following amendments:<br />
(a) the following new paragraph 1 shall be inserted and the next paragraph shall be<br />
renumbered 2: etc, etc and so it goes on. </p>
<p>Does it meet the criteria of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties?   I certainly do not think so.  Having read the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I do believe that Members of Parliament have a duty to really look at the Treaty in the light I have mentioned and if they believe that people may not be able to understand this Treaty that will affect the lives of every one throughout this our Country for generations to come, it should either go before the convention now with a challenge or rejected by those &quot;Honourable&quot; Members that sit (for now) in those hallowed Halls. </p>
<p>Have ALL Heads of State had sight of the Contents or was a blank sheet of paper signed by them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1341</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:08:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1341</guid>
		<description>Is it only Parliament that has been &quot;silenced&quot;?  Are you sure it is not the Television?  Radio?  The Press? 
 
I am absolutely sick of watching the process of voting for a new American President and wonder if ANYTHING will do as long as no one mention&#039;s The Lisbon Treaty.  Blimy, its a re-run of &quot;don&#039;t mention the war&quot;. 
 
I can understand the reluctance of MP&#039;s to talk about the complications of ratifying such a treacherous Treaty. It is not the kind of Treaty that anyone whose loyal and true allegiance is to their Queen (Crown) and country would want to ratify, is it? 
I mean, how could they even contemplate transferring the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making Powers to a foreign Government that owes no allegiance to the Monarch and is not accountable to the people of this Country?  Ah yes, of course, we tend to forget, ALL MP&#039;s are accountable to the people of this Country..  We pay them out of our taxes and we vote for them don&#039;t we?  Will we still do so if ever the Treaty is ratified? 
Have MP&#039;s any idea of the anger brewing up in the people? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it only Parliament that has been &quot;silenced&quot;?  Are you sure it is not the Television?  Radio?  The Press? </p>
<p>I am absolutely sick of watching the process of voting for a new American President and wonder if ANYTHING will do as long as no one mention&#039;s The Lisbon Treaty.  Blimy, its a re-run of &quot;don&#039;t mention the war&quot;. </p>
<p>I can understand the reluctance of MP&#039;s to talk about the complications of ratifying such a treacherous Treaty. It is not the kind of Treaty that anyone whose loyal and true allegiance is to their Queen (Crown) and country would want to ratify, is it?<br />
I mean, how could they even contemplate transferring the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making Powers to a foreign Government that owes no allegiance to the Monarch and is not accountable to the people of this Country?  Ah yes, of course, we tend to forget, ALL MP&#039;s are accountable to the people of this Country..  We pay them out of our taxes and we vote for them don&#039;t we?  Will we still do so if ever the Treaty is ratified?<br />
Have MP&#039;s any idea of the anger brewing up in the people?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Agincourt</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1340</link>
		<dc:creator>Agincourt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1340</guid>
		<description>John 
Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly tell me that they voted in support of a motion on 8 October 2007 recommending that there should be a UK-wide referendum on the current Lisbon EU Constitutional Reform Treaty.  Scottish MSPs tell me that they voted in support of a similar motion on 19 December 2007.  Finally Guernsey held its own &quot;referendum on a referendum&quot; on the Lisbon Treaty on 26 January 2008. 
 
Some of the members of both assemblies are now considering holding full referendums on the treaty within Northern Ireland &amp; Scotland respectively.   Is this the way forward? 
 
Certainly, I think so.  It would be hard for a UK government to disregard a Northern Irish vote, &amp; near impossible to disregard a Scottish one.  And if the government did so, not only would this be potentially electorally catastrophic for Labour, it also would be excellent material for lawyers with the government probably losing some at least (&amp; hopefully all) of the related court cases.   Meanwhile the totally artificial EU timetable of having everything signed, sealed, &amp; delivered by the end of 2008 would slip by, &amp; the government&#039;s self-proclaimed competence would become even less convincing than it is now. 
 
If the Tory party genuinely wants to defend our ancient &amp; very hard-won liberties, then I recommend most strongly that the Tory party gives all its support to those in Northern Ireland &amp; Scotland, &amp; Wales too if they start thinking the same way, who want a full-scale referendums on the Lisbon Treaty within their regions - independently of Westminster if the government fails to provide them with one. 
 
 Democracy demands nothing less! 
 
Agincourt 
 
Reply: I agree. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John<br />
Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly tell me that they voted in support of a motion on 8 October 2007 recommending that there should be a UK-wide referendum on the current Lisbon EU Constitutional Reform Treaty.  Scottish MSPs tell me that they voted in support of a similar motion on 19 December 2007.  Finally Guernsey held its own &quot;referendum on a referendum&quot; on the Lisbon Treaty on 26 January 2008. </p>
<p>Some of the members of both assemblies are now considering holding full referendums on the treaty within Northern Ireland &amp; Scotland respectively.   Is this the way forward? </p>
<p>Certainly, I think so.  It would be hard for a UK government to disregard a Northern Irish vote, &amp; near impossible to disregard a Scottish one.  And if the government did so, not only would this be potentially electorally catastrophic for Labour, it also would be excellent material for lawyers with the government probably losing some at least (&amp; hopefully all) of the related court cases.   Meanwhile the totally artificial EU timetable of having everything signed, sealed, &amp; delivered by the end of 2008 would slip by, &amp; the government&#039;s self-proclaimed competence would become even less convincing than it is now. </p>
<p>If the Tory party genuinely wants to defend our ancient &amp; very hard-won liberties, then I recommend most strongly that the Tory party gives all its support to those in Northern Ireland &amp; Scotland, &amp; Wales too if they start thinking the same way, who want a full-scale referendums on the Lisbon Treaty within their regions &#8211; independently of Westminster if the government fails to provide them with one. </p>
<p> Democracy demands nothing less! </p>
<p>Agincourt </p>
<p>Reply: I agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Archer</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1339</link>
		<dc:creator>John Archer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1339</guid>
		<description>One day, when we&#039;re finally shot of the EU, I want to see all those responsible for this  treason very severely punished. And that includes those in your party too. 
 
In fact, I&#039;d like to see the whole affair conducted in the manner of a farcical show trial,  to mirror the status and flavour of the current proceedings; all the while with the  prosecution conducting itself in the quiet, calm, reasonable, thespian, lying manner of a Jim Murphy, David Milibland or Douglas Alexander, to be followed by the inevitable  unspeakable acts of vengeance against these traitors. 
 
Much as I appreciate your efforts (and I do thank you) and the efforts of likeminded  members of your party I will now never vote for the Conservative Party again until it rids  itself of its europhiliac infestation </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One day, when we&#039;re finally shot of the EU, I want to see all those responsible for this  treason very severely punished. And that includes those in your party too. </p>
<p>In fact, I&#039;d like to see the whole affair conducted in the manner of a farcical show trial,  to mirror the status and flavour of the current proceedings; all the while with the  prosecution conducting itself in the quiet, calm, reasonable, thespian, lying manner of a Jim Murphy, David Milibland or Douglas Alexander, to be followed by the inevitable  unspeakable acts of vengeance against these traitors. </p>
<p>Much as I appreciate your efforts (and I do thank you) and the efforts of likeminded  members of your party I will now never vote for the Conservative Party again until it rids  itself of its europhiliac infestation</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony db</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1338</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony db</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1338</guid>
		<description>I find the whole Constitution/Lisbon treaty ratification process a sad &amp; depressing epitaph for UK parliamentary democracy.   I am not even angry, I am just deeply saddened. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find the whole Constitution/Lisbon treaty ratification process a sad &amp; depressing epitaph for UK parliamentary democracy.   I am not even angry, I am just deeply saddened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shades</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1337</link>
		<dc:creator>Shades</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1337</guid>
		<description>Peter whale- it isn&#039;t that. The Constitution consolidated (&amp; replaced) what had already been agreed in previous treaties, plus extra stuff. The treaty dispenses with the consolidated bit but still adds most of the extra stuff, scattergun approach over all of the existing treaties. 
 
I think it is loopy for us to sign the thing before we ratify it, but there is something rather Soviet about the way we do these things these days. 
 
Check out the 6th one down above from Nation of Shopkeepers- an excellent analogy between the EU and dodgy double glazing salesmen. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter whale- it isn&#039;t that. The Constitution consolidated (&amp; replaced) what had already been agreed in previous treaties, plus extra stuff. The treaty dispenses with the consolidated bit but still adds most of the extra stuff, scattergun approach over all of the existing treaties. </p>
<p>I think it is loopy for us to sign the thing before we ratify it, but there is something rather Soviet about the way we do these things these days. </p>
<p>Check out the 6th one down above from Nation of Shopkeepers- an excellent analogy between the EU and dodgy double glazing salesmen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan G</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1336</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1336</guid>
		<description>On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter whale</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1335</link>
		<dc:creator>peter whale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1335</guid>
		<description>If it is an amending treaty only consolidating what has already been agreed.  Why does it need ratifying? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it is an amending treaty only consolidating what has already been agreed.  Why does it need ratifying?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikestallard</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1334</link>
		<dc:creator>mikestallard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/06/the-government-tries-to-silence-parliament/#comment-1334</guid>
		<description>I happened to catch Bill Cash&#039;s speech, on a very badly received TV, which was delivered in a very dignified and thoughtful way, I thought. 
It is reassuring that at least there are a few people out there who can see the threat. 
And allow me to congratulate you personally for your principled stance. 
Afterwards, on BBC4, I watched a film about Poland where several suspected crimes of murder were tried without a jury by a tired looking judge in a golden chain. In one case the judge was referred to as &quot;not standing any nonsense&quot;. Guilt was, in other words, assumed. It could have been a Soviet trial. 
It was admitted that the prosecutor had little or no evidence to go on and was relying on a confession from the dock. When he didn&#039;t get it, he sort of gave up. 
The sentence, for 12 years imprisonment, was delivered by a prison warder with a letter to the condemned man in the cell, not in the court. The verdict was given in the same letter. 
(Meanwhile the real murderer was interviewed in his own house as a free man.) 
When will people realise what MPs in parliament are simply throwing away? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I happened to catch Bill Cash&#039;s speech, on a very badly received TV, which was delivered in a very dignified and thoughtful way, I thought.<br />
It is reassuring that at least there are a few people out there who can see the threat.<br />
And allow me to congratulate you personally for your principled stance.<br />
Afterwards, on BBC4, I watched a film about Poland where several suspected crimes of murder were tried without a jury by a tired looking judge in a golden chain. In one case the judge was referred to as &quot;not standing any nonsense&quot;. Guilt was, in other words, assumed. It could have been a Soviet trial.<br />
It was admitted that the prosecutor had little or no evidence to go on and was relying on a confession from the dock. When he didn&#039;t get it, he sort of gave up.<br />
The sentence, for 12 years imprisonment, was delivered by a prison warder with a letter to the condemned man in the cell, not in the court. The verdict was given in the same letter.<br />
(Meanwhile the real murderer was interviewed in his own house as a free man.)<br />
When will people realise what MPs in parliament are simply throwing away?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

