Reply: Yes, I found out how to delete addresses and did so.

Reply: No such language is not approved by this site. If it appeared in text submitted I would edit it out.

Although there are some very interesting and important points too, I have to say that the one that attracted me the most was one by Denis Cooper at 2.35. It was the most important one to me although I do go along with many of the legal and constitutional angles and the repealing of the European Communities Act 1972. However I cannot see any of the three political Parties ever doing that.

To me the whole legal angle sinks into oblivion if the EU AGREEMENT SOFA directive (Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.) becomes active and or article 5 of the Treaty of Velson is activated and the EU sends in the Eurogendarmerie, or perhaps both together. Our Government has agreed to the whole of SOFA, in total. That combined with the NEW External Action Article 188R (Article 188 R is a new article which introduces a new and wide-ranging “solidarity clause” which compels the Member States to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.) and I think perhaps we would be trapped probably unable to fight our way out because who would be in command of our forces? Plus, we have already reduced them to ‘blend in’ with the EU forces too. We haven’t got enough or good equipment now even while our troops are away fighting and desperately need better and more supplies.

I think Bill Cash was well aware of various possible consequences if Parliament nullified some aspect of EU law, before having one of them explained to him by Professor Dashwood.

Ultimately the answer could be that the UK courts ignored a ruling from EU’s Court of Justice – as would the German federal constitutional court, if it found that an EU law was infringing the German Basic Law – and the UK government would either not pay any fines, or would pay them but then deduct them from the UK’s contribution to the EU budget.

If any other member states wanted to pursue the quarrel further, rather than seeking a political settlement, then let them come across with their army and enforce their will on our Parliament.

You need to remember that while the Crown can make a treaty with foreign powers, that treaty can’t bind our Parliament if it affects domestic law – see that first article of the Bill of Rights – and while one Parliament can authorise the domestic legal consequences of a treaty, that Parliament can’t bind its successors.

Basic prior facts of our constitution which were very well known to the governments of the other EEC countries, when they agreed to UK accession in 1972.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1069329

“If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons …”

The Lords made a mistake by not insisting on the insertion of words such as “or a Bill containing any provision to amend any provision of this Act”, and so they ceded to the Commons the power to unilaterally amend the 1911 Act using its own provisions.

As the Commons did through the 1949 Act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1949/pdf/ukpga_19490103_en.pdf

“Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, and by authority of the same, as follows:-”

and as they could do again, either to further shorten or effectively eliminate the period of delay that the Lords can impose on a Bill, or to suspend elections.

But the Labour government has now left it too late to attempt either of those things, even under the 1949 Act.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060515/debtext/60515-0010.htm

“In my legal opinion, it would be impossible to seek to override section 2 of the European Communities Act merely by order. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the mechanism that I have employed in my new clause has been before parliamentary counsel and cleared for this purpose. It says

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

and refers to any order repealing, amending or replacing other legislation that has been introduced under section 2 and is therefore binding on this Parliament only by virtue of the 1972 Act. We could not change that by order, but if the authority were given by primary legislation, using the words

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

that would attract the legislative supremacy of the primary legislation that the Bill before us would then provide.”

“The mechanism to enable the constitutional procedure to have the effect that I desire is contained in the new clause. I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) understood that. We need the backing of primary legislation, using the magic words,

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

and then referring to the fact that it shall be binding in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom. That provides the mechanism whereby the judiciary are under a duty to give effect to that latest Act of Parliament.”

Curiously it seems that Bill Cash had somehow managed to get official Tory support for this amendment, but in March 2008 he didn’t get official support for his New Clause 9 to affirm and defend the supremacy of Parliament against possible attack by Declaration 17 attached to the Lisbon Treaty.

Apparently Dominic Grieve incorrectly advised that it would “create a constitutional contradiction” – obviously incorrectly, as EU law has no force in this country other than that allowed to it by Parliament, and Parliament can decide that it will not consent to a certain EU law taking effect.

I’ve no doubt that eventually this issue will have to be re-visited. Eg next year Cameron may find that he has no alternative but to seek Parliamentary authorisation to nullify EU measures designed to destroy the City of London, whether the Brown government had agreed to them or it had been out-voted.

State liability is not cheap: the UK had to shell out £81 million in damages (including interest) + unknown sum for legal costs.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010208/text/10208w02.htm
(Col WA120)

A legal technique that would give clear instructions to the judiciary, and that you could be confident of working, would be actually to amend the ECA 1972. So, in whatever new Bill you want to protect, keep your unreliable “notwithstanding…” if you like, but also include an amendment to s2(4) of the ECA to make an exception for your new Bill. Those would be the “magic words” Bill Cash is after.