“This realm of England is an empire…”

 

            Getting rid of continental jurisdiction over the UK is as easy an enacting an Act of Parliament.  It was an Act of Parliament that brought in major EU powers. It is through amending or repealing that same Statute that EU powers can be limited or removed.

             England had to do this before. In 1533 Henry VIII was worried about the succession and believed his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to be void, as he had married his brother’s wife. The King wished  English divines to settle the matter without fear of Rome intervening and overruling. The Crown appealed to long history and custom, and to the powers of Parliament, to assert its own authority at the expense of the see of Rome. Parliament willingly passed an Act preventing future appeal of legal cases to Rome or elsewhere overseas. The UK wanted to make its own decisions. Royal will used Parliamentary authority to allow the Crown to end appeals to Rome.

           In language which rings down the centuries Parliament said:

“…this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King…

And whereas the King his most noble progenitors and the nobility and Commons of this said realm, at divers and sundry Parliaments…made sundry ordinances,laws, statutes and provisions for the entire and sure conservation of the prerogatives liberties and pre-eminences of the said imperial crown of this realm, and of the jurisdictions spiritual and temporal of the same, to keep it from the annoyance as well as the see of Rome as from the authority of other foreign potentates attempting the diminution or violation thereof…”

         The EU has violated and diminished that imperial sovereignty, confirmed as the King’s by Parliament in 1533 and progressively transferred to Parliament over the ensuing three centuries. What could be corrected by a revolutionary Act in 1533, with some distortion of the past truth about  the power of the see of Rome, could today be corrected by an Act of Parliamentary will. The Commons needs to  invoke  the spirit of English and British independence that was common for three centuries or more prior to 1972.

          Those who say that the UK can no longer be independent because it has signed binding Treaties do not seem to grasp our long history of independence, or understand how Treaties work. Treaties are solemn and binding for the time that they suit the signatories to them. When they cease to suit one or more of the contracting parties, they are renegotiated or renounced. 

                 If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will. It will either be able to negotiate one more to its liking, or assert one, as Henry VIII did in rejecting appeals to Rome. It would be a less revolutionary act than Henry’s with more history and precedent on its side, thanks no little to the successful change of relationship with Europe achieved by the Reformation.

                Looking out at the sea of Union flags in London over the Jubilee week-end,without  a single  twelve star banner of our EU  membership or servitude in sight, it seems  time for Parliament to awake. Many UK voters want their Parliament to do as the people wish, not as Brussels commands. They want the High Court of Parliament to be the ultimate source of authority in many areas. They dislike the new fashion of appeal to a distant European court to find out what we are allowed to do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

143 Comments

  1. ian wragg
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    Now find someone with the spine to do it.
    Certainly not anyone in the Tory party

    • Iain
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      Indeed, our problem has always been the small minded little men who rule us, who have allowed our constitution to be usurped by the EU.

      The case that John Redwood makes doesn’t go far enough, for it is not so much a case of trying to find a way out of the EU nightmare, but making it clear what has been done for the establishments EU cause is an act of treason.

      The 1559 Act of Supremacy states…

      ‘that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities’

      Which is again restated in the 1689 Bill of Rights , both part of our constitutional law, and which no sane person can claim to not have been usurped by the EU treaties, especially Lisbon . To usurp our constitutional law is an act of Treason.

      All we need is someone in the establishment to up hold our constitutional law, and that is the problem. We are in the bizarre situation where we have an establishment who don’t and won’t uphold the constitutional law.

      • uanime5
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

        Under the Doctrine of Implied Repeal if two acts are contradictory then the courts assume the former act has repealed the latter. So Parliament has legally replaced the Bill of Rights with the EU treaties.

        • APL
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

          The doctrine of implied repeal was set aside by the judgment in the so called ‘metric marters’ case.

          There is now ‘Constitutional law’ and run of the mill law. Or some such lashup.

          We do not live in a lawful country.

          • uanime5
            Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

            What was the judgement in this case and which court was it held in? I trust you’re not confusing a change in Government policy with a change in EU law.

      • peter
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        What you say about Lisbon surely should mean that treason has been committed by the then unelected prime minister broon who pushed this through so he should stand in front of an inquiry for this and the mess he made of banking regulation and state asset stripping.

        Step forward Broon and Balls you must read this blog, lets have some explanation.

    • Timaction
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      Whilst I agree with you Mr Redwood, Camerons Calamity Coalition will do nothing of the sort. He doesn’t do National interest as he is missing some essential manly body parts!

    • Robert Taggart
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Certainly not the ‘heir to Bliar’ !

  2. colliemum
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    If I start to sound like a sycophant, John – forgive me! Your posts about the EU are simply outstanding, and cut through the obfuscations we’re so used to hear. I hope you can turn them into a handy pamphlet!

    The first sentence in this § is especially important:
    “If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will. It will either be able to negotiate one more to its liking, or assert one, as Henry VIII did in rejecting appeals to Rome. It would be a less revolutionary act than Henry’s with more history and precedent on its side, thanks no little to the successful change of relationship with Europe achieved by the Reformation.”

    Indeed – and it is the political will which has been lacking and is lacking. That will has not been shown by our political leaders, and has not been encouraged by their Whitehall advisers. In fact, I suggest that these Whitehall advisers, or Mandarins, are cowering in fear of the EU commissars and bureaucrats. After all, their first remark to any new proposal coming from their political masters, ahem ministers, is that there are EU regulations which prevent said proposal … a bit like the famous TV advert “computer says No”.

    Thanks for this post, John – I’m looking forward to the next one!

    • Susanna
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Isn’t it time that every Wednesday, the PM was asked about his referendum promise by his backbenchers? Isn’t it time for a bit more action instead of fine words? You see, Conservatives are leaving in their droves for UKIP, I WILL vote UKIP unless the Conservatives offer a referendum before or at the same time as the election in 2015. In fact, I think I’ll vote UKIP anyway as I like their other policies on energy and education… a lot.

      ‘The computer says No’ was a long-running Little Britain skit with David Walliams in drag, not an advertisement.

      • Bob
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        @Susanna

        Would you vote Tory if Cameron offered a cast iron guarantee?

    • Alexis
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      I second that, colliemum!

    • APL
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

      colliemum: “If I start to sound like a sycophant, John – forgive me!”

      John Redwood my be more or less sound on the EU, but his party is rotten to the core.

  3. Brian Taylor
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Sounds good to me, but will we have a chance to vote for any political party in the next Election that has the courage to put this to the people.

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink

      Not one with any real chance of victory it seems.

    • Ashley Mooney
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      Yes indeed. Oh for a pro-UK mainstream party to vote for. It would sit well with a pro-citizen party, focussed on individual rights in the face of the government / corporate establishment. Let’s hope the party of John Redwood, David Davies and Douglas Carswell gets us there eventually.

  4. GJ Wyatt
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Isn’t it asymmetrical: we can leave the EU if we wish, but by what mechanism could the other members eject us?

    • eddyh
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      Who cares by what mechanism they eject us, provided they do. I can’t see Camerlegg or Milligrub getting us out.

  5. lifelogic
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    You say “If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will.”

    Well “the UK” has to find a way to elect politicians who have the political will. But it cannot do this with the current party structures. MPs who promise cast iron things and do the opposite, once the votes have been gathered. Who are only interested in a career and who always respond to party and salary, pensions, promotion and expenses rather than electorate.

    Also with the good old BBC indoctrinating everyone in pro EU, big state, fake green drivel every day. Supervised by Cameron’s choice of the ex European Commissioner Lord Patten as the head of BBC trustees.

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      Osborne’s growth bonds just seems like yet more (very slightly disguised) borrow and waste. If people just move the money out of banks deposits then the banks will surely have even less to lend. Would you trust a growth bond from Cast Iron Cameron & Osborne, in devaluing sterling to pay for something daft like wind power or HS2.

      Why not just get rid of the huge waste – rather than find yet more ways to borrow, tax and waste more.

      We already have all the taxes Income up to 50%, VAT 20%, CGT 28%, NI employer and employee circa 22%, Inheritance 40%, stamp duty up to 7%, fuel, alcohol and VED duty, passport taxes, tv taxes, parking taxes …. Then we have the pension scam where people get duff annuities (circa 3.5% inflation linked as they are obliged to lend to government). Finally the often government owned bank “taxes” 0.2% on deposits and 7%-30% plus fees should you ever borrow.

      Surely over a lifetime these combine to take very nearly 100% of all wealth/income – is this not just a form of slavery?

      • zorro
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        Yes, effectively when you add it up – the best way to combat it now is by not playing their game, and starving thebeast wherever possible.

        zorro

        • lifelogic
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

          Indeed the system says best to go on the dole, barter and have lots of children for others to pay for. Or just leave the UK.

    • nicol sinclair
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      For Commissioner, read Komissar

      • nicol sinclair
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

        This should have been attached to lifelogic’s post…

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      Good to hear Professor Patrick Minford on the button as usual no more QE is needed. We mainly need to get money to SME’s by sorting out the bank regulations which are forcing the banks to suck the blood out of them. The government owned ones are worst of all.

      Reply: Yes, he is taking the same line as this website.

      • zorro
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

        I fear that the Basle III regulations and this requirement to stockpile cash supposedly as an insurance policy is wrong headed. It is risk which should govern activity, but these regulations are not helping banks to invest in companies to craete a profit.

        zorro

        • lifelogic
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

          Indeed they are destroying good jobs all over the place.

  6. Adam5x5
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    And yet, not one ‘main’ party is willing to reflect the will of the people and ‘offer’ a referendum.
    Is this a conspiracy to take over the continent?
    I prefer the cock-up version of history and believe that people act in their own interest and hence the majority of politicos want to be in Europe to get a seat on the gravy train.

    While it may be easy for Parliament to assert independence, there is no will as politicians want to move to the EU machinery after.
    It is only now that the whole edifice is coming down that suddenly there is talk of Labour and the Tories offering a referendum.

    Too little, too late – I am not convinced that these parties are acting in anything other than their own interests. At least the Lib Dems are consistent in saying they want further in to the EU and euro (even though they are wrong to do so), and UKIP have always said they are against us being in the EU.

    And then politicians and journalists wonder why political engagement is falling – something to do with disillusionment with the above points maybe?

    I would also like to point out that you say it is easy for treaties to be declared void.
    This is exactly the reason a lot of people have so much contempt for Cameron.
    His cast Iron guarantee of a referendum… (unless the treaty was ratified)
    It was ratified before he came in, so we were denied.
    Why didn’t we get one anyway, if it is so easy to get out as you (rightly) point out?
    Or are you subtly pointing out what I believe, that Cameron knew it would be ratified before he came in, was just posturing for votes and had no intention of doing what was in the best interests of the country and it’s people? In which case I salute you sir.

    • Michael
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      The more that political engagement falls, the easier it is in the short term for the political cartel to get away with its effronteries and its failures. Their only horizon is short-term, so don’t expect the pollies to take any action beyond the occasional mild wringing of hands.
      Longer term their abdication of duty is a recipe for social unrest and that will be their most heinous crime.

  7. Kevin Ronald Lohse
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    Oh John! Yes the marriage was barren, and yes Katherine was Arthur’s wife, but the reason for the dissolution of the marriage was so doubtful that Rome would not have agreed to the divorce despite Henry being in good odour with Rome at the time and Sir Thomas More, at that time the Speaker, could not in all conscience support his King. I hope that we have a better case for unbinding the chains of the EU.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Do you think that financial collapse and social degradation across the continent might do the trick?

      Tad

      • Mike Stallard
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

        No. I don’t think it will.

    • s macdonald
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Actually, John’s simile is very acute – Rome was reluctant to grant Henry’s request for divorce because the Pope feared the wrath of Catherine’s supremely powerful Spanish relatives; they controlled the Holy Roman Empire, which spread across Europe.

      Reply: They also knew Anne was a Protestant.

      • Mike Stallard
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink

        Oh come on – the Pope was a poor old broken man who had to run away from Rome because it was a smoking pile of ruins after the invasion. He received the English Ambassadors in a hut full of old clothes with his pathetic old head in his wrinkled old hands.
        Oh – and he wash’t really very good at making decisions anyway.

        • uanime5
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

          According to one legend the Pope was prepared to grant the annulment but after Cardinal Wolsey’s greyhound Urian bit him he refused.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

          If people aren’t very good at making decisions, it ill behoves them to claim that they are infallible. Nor is it very clever for their followers to claim that they are infallible.

          The power of the Papacy throughout history never ceases to amaze me. Even when the Scots wrote the stirring Declaration of Arbroath asserting their nationhood, they sent it to the pope for approval.

          Perhaps in the modern world Alex Salmond should send Scotland’s declaration of independence to Professor Richard Dawkins for approval.

          • uanime5
            Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

            Firstly the Pope is only infallible on religious issues.

            Secondly it was normal for countries seeking independence to try to get other countries to support their independence.

  8. zorro
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    As I have previously said, all it needs is just under 350 patriots in Parliament who believe in their country and its essential freedom…..

    Zorro

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      OK
      So what about the very rich lawyers who are currently making a killing? Or the judges who interpret the EU laws? Are they going to submit without a fight?
      And what about the BBC which gets a lot of perks out of Europe, including, I hear, quite a large sum of money too?
      And what about the entire Civil Service with all those bureaucrats linked at the hip with Berlaymont these thirty years? Or their ministers who are so used to working in the current format with Statutory Instruments and safely democratic general instructions from Brussels?

      None of these vital people (including note Mr Clegg’s and Tony Blair’s wife) will come quietly.

      • uanime5
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Don’t forget all the workers who will lose most of their employment rights if EU law is removed.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

          What absolute bullshit. The Treaty of Rome didn’t even exist until 1957.

          • uanime5
            Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

            The EU has made more employment laws since 1957, most of which will be lost if the UK leaves the EU and ministers are free to removed any rights they consider inconvenient.

        • lifelogic
          Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

          They would not but it would be a good thing if they did. The real protection is more jobs available not silly regulations.

      • zorro
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Mike,
        You are correct, a lot of those people have a Common Purpose, particularly the civil servant/bureaucrat types…..but what I say is also technically correct….all it requires is a majority in Parliament to overturn that Act.

        zorro

    • Mazz
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      So far, 71 MP’s (including JR) have signed the People’s Pledge – the campaign for an EU Referendum.

      The People’s Pledge recently held a referendum in Thurrock and 14,590 people voted with 89.9% of them voting to hold an EU Referendum. They are working towards having other referendums soon, in Cheadle, Hazel Grove and Manchester Withington, all in Greater Manchester.

      Reply: More importantly, more MPs than 71 voted for a referendum in the Commons, the body that has the power to grant one!

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      How many have we now, under fifty maybe?

    • Bob
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      @Zorro

      We really need to start voting for EU sceptic candidates.
      The party offering the greatest selection of those I believe is UKIP.

      The Tory Party appears to be largely in favour of the UK remaining a member of the EU and in the case of some Tory extremists, joining the €urozone too.

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        But they will not get in to many “always have always” will vote one of the two main parties.

  9. Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Quite so! I have retweeted the main quote with enough characters remaining for only the link and JRMP I regret!

  10. Duyfken
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    Rightly many of us, led by persons of calibre such as JR, want to be out of the clutches of the EU, and we focus on the means to achieve that end. But then what then? Should there not be a plan or plans for the future direction of the UK away from the EU?

    There is some talk of reviving the Commonwealth ties and even some desultory forays abroad by the PM and others to engage with other countries and economies, although there seems be no coherent policy of diversification, let alone much discussion of EFTA type associations.

    However, we, the public, might be more inclined to vote “OUT” in a referendum were a well-defined case to be set out of what attractive alternative there is to the expensive and stultifying EU. The campaign should be positive.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

      That is all part of their plot.

      The mainstream parties won’t put forward an alternative, because they don’t wish the public even to consider the possibility. They are so wedded to, and besotted with the EU, the last thing they want is a proper debate, because they know they’ll lose it.

      How’s that for a total disregard of the public’s right to be properly led?

      Democracy, what democracy?

      Their main weakness now, however, is that people have better access to information and sites like these, so people are better informed and less likely to be duped. Were the internet available in 1972, Heath would never have been able to pass his legislation. And to think I once shook that man’s hand!

      Tad

      • Bob
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Yuk!

    • forthurst
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      The economic arguments for joining the EEC were much more compelling than those for staying in the EU now. No longer can the Continent threaten us with a tariff wall against our best endeavours because the WTO exists to demolish such artificial impediments to trade.

      Were you to ask Singapore what its strategy was for prospering as a City state in the shadow of a superpower, it might say, “Education, education, education; intolerance of crooks (including financial spivs) and freeloaders (including jobsworths) and set the people free to create their own destiny.”

      • uanime5
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        The EU already has a tariff wall which the WTO approves of. This is why the EU can impose textile quotas on China.

        • forthurst
          Posted June 8, 2012 at 11:03 am | Permalink

          The EU does not have a tarrif wall. If it wants to impose any tarrifs on world trade it has to negotiate specific optouts exclusively with the WTO. Italian textile manufacturers from our point of view are pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

          • uanime5
            Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

            So if the EU wants to restrict China’s textile exports they have to negotiate this with the WTO. Why exactly would China or the WTO agree to these restrictions?

    • Little White Squibba
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      “..we, the public, might be more inclined to vote “OUT” in a referendum were a well-defined case to be set out of what attractive alternative there is…”
      OUT is the attractive alternative.

      • Duyfken
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        No, that is insufficient except to you, me and kindred spirits. Some well-defined prospect is needed to present as the alternative, not just getting out of the EU.

  11. John Fitzgerald
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    John all very true and well put. But evidence shows that the political will does not exist, sadly!

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

      Not in parliament anyway.

  12. Sue
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    I think you would be pleasantly surprised by how the atmosphere would change in the UK if we withdrew from the EU. That great British spirit was evident during the Jubilee and our membership of the EU has demoralised and degraded us. The EU has become a greedy insatiable monster and it’s time we showed the rest of the world that we have some backbone left.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      Spot on Sue!

      After the BBC and Left-wing news (that is, Channel 4 News) tried to condition everyone into thinking the monarchy was a busted flush, it was quite a revelation to see how wrong they were. Pride in the nation and the ‘Bulldog spirit’ seems as strong as ever it was. We will always be British first.

      Yet the likes of Edwina Curry (you remember her, John Major certainly will) call us ‘Little Englanders’, just because we want what is best for our people. The EU that she and her ilk were once so enthusiastic about, certainly hasn’t done us any favours!

      If only they’d now come out of the woodwork and give us a good reason for their continued belief that the EU is good for Britain.

      Tad

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        No one ever gives a reason beyond – free trade, preventing wars and being in so we can influence the rules. All are self evident nonsense.

    • Cliff. Wokingham
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Hear hear Sue!

      John,
      Regarding the Diamond Jubilee celebrations; It saddened me to see Republic’s supporters out attempting to disrupt the celebrations to further their single issue aims. Obviously, I respect their right to protest and to voice their opinions even though, I feel the timing was inappropriate inn many ways…..My question John, I looked up the aforementioned organisation on the web and found their website; lots of rhetoric but no way of commenting on their points…..I noticed that some MPs were members/supporters of the organisation. I wonder how this sits with their oath which they made when they entered the House of Commons at which time, they swore loyalty to QE2? Does this break any HOC rules? What does this tell us about the value of their word of honour and integrity?

      Reply: An MP is bound by the election and his relation with his constituents more than by the oath of office. If he or she wishes to be re-elected what matters if what his voters think.

    • Chris
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      Another hear, hear, to Sue.

      Thank you, Mr Redwood, for a clear, no nonsense article. The problem, as so many others have stated, is that there is not the political will amongst the leadership group to replace our membership of the EU with a new trading agreement, nor is there any intention on their part to be honest with the electorate about how relatively simple (though not easy) this procedure could be. It is this “dishonesty” with the electorate, and the apparent contempt for the electorate (by assuming they are unintelligent) that so angers voters. This is one of the main reasons that support for the Conservative party under Cameron has been haemorrhaging, and why, I believe, the Conservative party will not win the next election.

  13. Robert K
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Let’s just do it!

  14. Pete the Bike
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Yes Mr Redwood, we could repudiate the treaty but you’re assuming that there is the political backbone to do so. I see no evidence of a spine in No 10.

  15. oldtimer
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    A good and sound point. It raises two questions. Do enough of your parliamentary colleagues have the bottle, let alone the will, to contemplate such a change? What is your preferred method of seeking the voters` consent to such a change, a referendum or a general election?

    Reply: No. A referendum.

    • Adam5x5
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      Reply to John’s reply:

      Would you prefer a simple In/Out referendum or would you prefer a third option of ‘renegotiate powers to be repatriated’?

      If the latter, how would this be approached? Would the negotiations be done and then a second referendum, our would we just get what we’re given?

      Reply: I am writing about that tomorrow. The latter is safer in my view.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        That makes me very uneasy. It retains some political link with the EU. That means the tentacles of the Europhiles could reach out, and by stealth, once again ensnare us. No, I think a divorce should mean a clean break, apart from voluntary cooperation on specific issues of mutual interest.

        Tad

  16. Roger Farmer
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    So get on with it. Any reluctance on the part of our present prime minister or his cabinet infers that they have a vested interest in perpetuating the farce of the political EU. While europes politicians stand like lamped rebbits our own await the result but do nothing lest they fail to appease their masters in Brussels. Our politicians are paid to lead, not wait around waiting for something to happen.

    • BobE
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      Roger, many MPs have pensions promised by the EU, providing they support the EU. A lot to loose if you realise that you will be out of office in 3 years time. Our politicians just follow, the leaders have all been removed.

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    JR : “If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will.”

    The problem is that there is a complete absence of that political will in the leadership of all three main parties in this country. The plan to create a country called Europe is proceeding via its own created eurozone crisis. Our own government is positively supporting this. How long before they tell us that we cannot thrive outside this newly created country? The dictatorship of Europe has no concern for the views of the people or that outdated concept of democracy.

  18. sm
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    We seem to have as a body parliament independent of the majority wishes of the voters.

    Given the prior cast iron promises – i view any reassertion of UK independence will most likely happen not as a result of leadership and strategic planning but operational and tactical firefighting as the EU splits up or even more unlikely moves to a unitary but slowly failing super-state.

  19. alan jutson
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Yes, it really is that simple.

    But then you have to find somebody with the will to do it, and that is the real problem.

    • nicol sinclair
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Alan Jutson. It’s not “the will to do it.” It’s that well known Greek philosopher Testicles…

  20. Mike Stallard
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    I am totally with colliemum on this one. She is utterly right.
    Totally. It is time for out.
    PDQ.

    I shall be watching the result of the PM’s visit to the German Chancellor with great interest. And how much will that put onto the trillion pounds debt, I ask?

    • zorro
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      Cameron’s words are below…can you see any cast iron guarantees here. It’s an interesting choice of words.

      “Because we are not in the single currency, we won’t take part in the profound elements of that banking union. I wouldn’t ask British taxpayers to stand behind the Greek or Spanish deposits. It is not our currency, so that would be inappropriate to do.”

      Key words here are as follows….’we won’t take part in the profound elements’……and ‘I wouldn’t ask British taxpayers’……His asking is not the point, what if the EU asked/demanded it!?

      He is as slippery as an eel.

      zorro

  21. Bill
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    OK, so we declare ourselves to be free of the EU. What happens next? What are (a) the economic consequences? We stop paying in but we also stop receiving. Will this matter? Then (b) what happens to the European Court’s rulings? Are these null and void or are some of them now embedded in our law? Then (c) what happens to our trade? Are there any disadvantages to our exit in the way of blockages to our commercial intercourse with Europe? Will our exit immediately provoke an attempt to set up Frankfurt or some other centre in competition to the City of London? Will this be to our advantage or disadvantage?

    I can remember the days when the EU or Common Market was made up of only six states and we set up the ‘Outer Seven’ (EFTA, founded in 1960) but it was generally agreed that this arrangement did not generate as much prosperity as we had hoped. Will it work better this time?

    • uanime5
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

      A) Most likely most non-UK people in the UK will be deported and all UK people in the EU will be deported back to the UK because free movement of people only applies to people who belong to EU countries.

      In the short term leaving the EU will be bad for the markets (all major changes are bad for the markets because no one will invest when they don’t know what will happen), unsure about the long term consequences. Though the UK will be more independent our bargaining position will be much weaker.

      B) Any EU laws passed by Parliament are still legally binding. While EU court judgements are no longer binding any UK court judgements that used the EU court judgements will be binding unless overturned by the appropriate courts.

      C) If the UK suddenly leaves the EU expect the UK to be punished with harsh trade quotas by the other 26 countries for causing them problems. If the UK leaves with the mutual consent of the EU we can expect some quotas in order to discourage other countries leaving the EU.

      It would be foolish to assume that the UK can just leave the EU and continue trading as if nothing has happened.

      D) I doubt that any European country will be interested in trying to create something to rival the City of London. They have their own ways of making money.

      • zorro
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        ‘If the UK suddenly leaves the EU expect the UK to be punished with harsh trade quotas by the other 26 countries for causing them problems’…….for causing them problems, like what? Not paying EU contributions? Why exactly? What problems?…..Do you seriously believe that they will bring in harsh trade quotas for causing them ‘problems’?…..When they export so much and have a balance of trade surplus with us….they would be mad to do so….very bizarre.

        zorro

        • uanime5
          Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

          If the UK suddenly announce that it’s leaving the EU expect the markets to panic, which will cause problems for everyone. Don’t expect the trade agreements to be favourable it the UK causes a lot of problems when they leave.

          Also trade with the EU is a 53% of the UK’s exports but for each of the other 26 EU countries the UK purchases less than 6% of their exports. So the UK will lose more from not trading with the EU than the EU will lose from not trading with the UK.

          Reply False figures and stranger logic.

          • zorro
            Posted June 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

            What do you mean not trading? The Uk is happy to continue trading with Europe. Why would Europe purposely disadvantage itself? It would be a very odd, unfriendly action to ‘punish’ us that way. Do you really think that they would do that? Are you happy to belong a union which would do that? I am not……

            Zorro

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

        You’re living in cloud cuckoo land:
        (1) There is no reason for any nation to cut off its nose to spite its face.
        (2) There are all the other nations to trade with. We are an island with many ports and airports and the whole wide world is our oyster.
        (3) It has been a settled German objective for years to see Frankfurt take over from the City of London.
        (4) We can repeal any Treaty and change any law that we want to. And if some damn fool judge tries to stop us, we can demolish his court room with a few well placed tank shells.

        There are no chains except those we choose to wear.

        • uanime5
          Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

          2) There are very few nations who can afford to purchase the UK’s products in the same quantity as Europe. There will also be additional costs in transporting these products.

          3) Please provide evidence that it is a German objective to have Frankfurt take over from the City of London.

          4) If Parliament refuses to accept the independence of the judiciary then we are living in a dictatorship.

          • Lindsay McDougall
            Posted June 9, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

            4) No, parliament would just be insisting that the judiciary does not have power in matters political.

          • zorro
            Posted June 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

            2) Come on now, have you not seen increasing exports to Asia?

            3) Show me some proof that the EU will punish us if we leave the Union. Where is your evidence?

            4) A lover of the EU preaching about dictatorship…….

            Zorro

  22. OGGA1
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    I do believe the chap that you seek go’s by the name of Mr Nigel Farage.

  23. Tad Davison
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    There are times in a man’s life when he must do something he’d rather not do, but is the lesser of two evils. That was the painful situation I was faced with two years ago. Although a natural Conservative, I wanted to vote for the party that came closest to my own beliefs – UKIP – because the present-day Tories had proven themselves far removed from everything they once stood for.

    The pressing need at the time, was to get rid of Labour and more precisely, Gordon Brown, so I held my nose and voted Tory. It very much looks as though the pressing need next time, will be to get rid of the gutless Cameron, who others have privately described as an opportunist.

    He just isn’t cutting it with his party or the electorate, but if he truly is an opportunist, he presently has one massive opportunity to give the people what they want, and mark himself out as one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever seen!

    So what’s stopping him?

    Could it possibly be, he won’t fight for Britain’s withdrawal, because secretly, that’s not what he really wants?

    What other possible reason could there be, for anyone to acquiesce to the waste, bureaucracy, and lack of democratic accountability that is the EU?

    The facts are all there! Cameron has the opportunity, but not the motivation, so why bother with him or his party any longer?

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      Tad,
      There is no secret about it, Cameron is on record as saying that he doesn’t want an In/Out referendum because he thinks the UK should stay in the EU. This tells us what he cares about our opinions and that he knows that the result of such a referendum would be a vote to leave.

  24. Roger Farmer
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    So get on with it. Any reluctance on the part of our present prime minister or his cabinet infers that they have a vested interest in perpetuating the farce of the political EU. While europes politicians stand like lamped rabbits our own await the result but do nothing lest they fail to appease their masters in Brussels. Our politicians are paid to lead, not wait around waiting for something to happen.

  25. Martin
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Whatever next – Everything reduced to Henry Viii and his unfortunate wives. Mind you at least his continental ones kept their human right to life. Some of his English ones were much less fortunate!

  26. Anthony Harrison
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    I congratulate you on your closing paragraph, which says it all. I wish these words could be emblazoned on a very large hoarding in Parliament Square:
    “If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will.”
    I have observed our apparent political impotence over the EU for several decades and it is in truth beyond my understanding how we have continued to our present state – baffling and shameful. History will damn those responsible.
    Many thanks.

  27. Atlas
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Yes John,

    … but as others have said here, we require somebody in No. 10 with good judgement.

    I’m off to read my history on Stanley Baldwin. Somehow my memory is telling me that the present No. 10 encumbent is showing unwelcome similarities.

  28. Tad Davison
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    This is a post I saw elsewhere. It uses s lot of quotes from history, that are highly appropriate. It’s author should be congratulated for finding them out, and they deserve to be read by as many people as possible.

    SAVE EURO NOW, PLEAD DAVID CAMERON AND BARACK OBAMA
    07.06.12, 9:15am
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    Benjamin Franklin

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
    When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
    Thomas Jefferson

    Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
    Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

    I am only one, but I am one.
    I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
    And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.
    What I can do, I should do.
    And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.
    Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909)

    The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.
    Benjamin Franklin

    In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned.
    When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
    Notebook, 1904
    Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

    It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
    Samuel Adams

    Liberty is defended in three stages:
    The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridges box.
    Ambrose Bierce

    People, rise up and revolt throughout the EU to destroy it and its COLONIALIST, CORRUPT, BAST€RD petty diktators and their QUISLINGS in every member country before they totally destroy you and your countries.
    • Posted by: antieudictatorship

    • uanime5
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      Have some more quotes:

      Each nation feels superior to other nations. That breeds patriotism – and wars.
      Dale Carnegie

      Gentlemen have talked a great deal of patriotism. A venerable word, when duly practiced.
      Robert Walpole

      Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism – how passionately I hate them!
      Albert Einstein

      Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.
      Albert Einstein

      Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.
      Mark Twain

      Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on his own dunghill.
      Richard Aldington

      Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.
      Guy de Maupassant

      Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.
      Charles de Gaulle

      Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.
      George Bernard Shaw

      • Posted June 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

        Just goes to show you: even the most brilliant men can be politically & historically misguided. Mr. Einsteins fate would have been certain doom in the absence of healthy patriotic Nations.

        The Jubilee must have roused your heart! Well done, Sir.

        Do you ever find yourself experiencing disbelief that England has been so betrayed by “cast iron” promises & a “Tory” “leader”?

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

        And a couple more:

        Which will sound better in the days to come
        Fight on the beaches or kiss the Nazi’s bum?
        George Orwell

        The fisher leaves aside the hook,
        The farmer leaves the plough,
        The student rises from his book:
        Their day and hour is now.

        Their faces all, both man and boy,
        With a lover’s flush are fired;
        They haste with swinging steps of joy
        To meet their long-desired;

        And every eye is glistening
        With hope no more denied;
        For now the marriage-morn will bring
        The bridegroom to the bride.

        J Enoch Powell (written shortly after 3rd September 1939)

  29. Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I would be interested to see if any EU supporter who doubts our right to quit without restraint is on record as saying that the EU’s “recognition” of the “independence” of Bosnia and Hercegovina has always been fraudulent. It is infinitely clearer that was part of a soverign state than can be said of the EU and thus only a politician who was infinitely corrupt could argue against Yugoslavia but for the EU. Of course infinitely corrupt politicians are not that rare.

  30. Little White Squibba
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    What I still can’t understand is WHY the politicians in charge of us WISH to remain in the EU.

    • BobE
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      Personal gain, jobs and power. Ask the Kinnocks.

  31. Robert Taggart
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Johnny, if it be so easy… why has no one done it ?!
    GET ON WITH IT !

    Reply: Because, as I keep on explaining, the UK voters keep on electing MPs who want to stay in the current EU empire.

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      They like to strut on a larger stage perhaps, and get better food, wine and weather and job opportunities maybe?

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. Quoting Maggie…
        “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity”!

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Reply: Because, as I keep on explaining, the UK voters keep on electing MPs who want to stay in the current EU empire.

      So, given that most of the Tory party, the Labour party, and the other loonies want more of it, we must vote UKIP to bring about the necessary changes?

      Tad

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        Could UKIP not infiltrate the Tories ? = Sorted !

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      John ,in your reply to Robert Taggart I would submit that it is not quite as simple as you suggest. Tory central office submit lists of pre- vetted candidates to local parties. Many of these candidates owe their loyalty to the party not the electorate who put them in place. This resulted in all but about 100 MPs voting against the wishes of those they represent who desired a referendum on EU membership. The lack of democracy involved in this stacked selection is one of the main reasons that Tory voters have become disenchanted with the system and fail to vote. Take control of this problem and you just might end up with a party that acts on behalf of the people.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted June 7, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        If only that point was more widely appreciated. These are the ones who stand up and sing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ at the Proms, wave the Union Jack, and have us believe they are ‘true blue’.

        How sickeningly duplicitous and sneaky is that!

        Little wonder the Tories are a tainted brand!

        Tad

  32. Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Henry Vlll’s ‘reclaiming of powers from Europe’ meant excommunication. Should we withdraw it is very unlikely our trade would suffer with Europe – we would be Europes largest single trading partner. Henry Vlll’s policy eventualy lead to the Armada but even during Elizabeths reign we practiced a ‘balance of power’ in Europe, supporting rebels against Spain in modern day Holland etc.

    Now we seem to have completely abandoned our ancient ‘balance of power’ in Europe policy that sought to stop others any single country becoming too powerfull that they threaten others and eventualy us. Why because some idealists whose underlying presumtion is that if the eurozone breaks up Germany MUST invade Poland or France?

    Now we see our Prime Minister and Chancelor actively encouraging greater union on the continent where power will be passed to unelected officials! Does Her Majestys Government seriously support unelected and unremovable gentlemen in Europe gaining control of all the continent?

    If this comes to pass the current Government will be held guilty of the gravest mistake in English and British history.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Unless the UK is going to trade with the EU more than Russia, China, Canada, or the USA we will never become the EU’s biggest trading partner.

      In military terms the problem in Europe isn’t that one country has become too powerful but that they’ve all entered a huge coalition and it would be unwise for the UK to be outside this coalition.

      Who are these unelected officials that will get this power?

  33. Leslie Singleton
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Abrogation now

  34. Steven Granger
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    A good article until one gets to the latter paragraph and the inevitable trotting out of the tired old mantras of wanting to “repatriate powers” and “change our relationship” with the EU. It has been pointed out to you many times why these are futile ambitions but you still insist on trotting them out. Your article starts with the idea of “getting rid of continental jurisdiction” and then ends with merely wanting to “change our relationship.” If you merely want to repatriate some powers whilst staying in the EU then that presumably impies that you are happy that the EU should retain some powers. If so, what powers are you happy that they retain? If you are happy that they retain powers over significant areas, how does this square with your desire that we have soveriegnty over our own affairs if a body over which we have no democratic control can make binding laws which we cannot change? If you don’t want the EU to retain significant powers then what is the point of the EU? You have acknowledged yourself that the game plan from the outset was ever closer policitical union, which was why you voted “no” in 1975? Why is it your current view that we should remain in the EU when this state of affairs still exists and it is even more clear to everyone what the real game plan was than it was in 1975? Presumably if we weren’t currently in the EU and there was a referendum on joining then you would today vote “yes” on the basis that we would join and then try and fundamentally change how the EU operates from within. If so, why did you vote “no” in 1975 and what has changed since then that you now support our continued membership? You want a relationship based purely on trade and co-operation – fine, so do I, but why does that mean staying in the EU? We have a good relationship with the USA based on trade and co-operation in many areas but I don’t hear you advocating that we join the USA as athe 51st state. Swittzerland has a good relationship with the EU as does the USA and China and a host of other countries. Please do explain in a coherent, consistent and logical manner the above apparent contradictions. Please also explain what gives you confidence that such a fundamental change can be achieved given the necessary treaty changes that would be required. Explain please why our Brussels master will tell us to do anything other than Foxtrot Oscar.

    Reply: You are ascribing to me views I do not hold. I want a new relationship based on trade and friendship. I voted against belonging to what we now belong to.

  35. Sean O'Hare
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    We are often told that it isn’t possible to abrogate EU treaties because it would be in breach of the UN’s Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969?

    http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

    I can’t see any of Lib/Lab/Con having the guts to breach this Convention even following “Out” winning a referendum.

    • ian wragg
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      As ther EU frequently ignores its own treaty obligaions, I don,t think there will be much opposition if we abrogate allor part of the existing treaties.

  36. Andrew Duffin
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    You’re absolutely correct, but I wish you would stop talking about our “relationship” with the EU.

    We don’t have a relationship with the EU, we are PART of the EU.

    In the same way, you don’t have a relationship with your left arm: it’s PART of you.

    They aren’t going to be interested in renegotiating anything, even suppose such a move were legal; they have more pressing things to worry about!

    But even so, repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and that’s it. We’re out.

    Better off out!

  37. Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    The trouble is that we have so many enemies within. Still, we all know what happened to Guy Fawkes….

    • Anthony Harrison
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps disembowellment and castration, prior to death by hanging, would be viewed as a little extreme by present day standards.

    • Robert Taggart
      Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      If you are English you could be forgiven for thinking everyone is against us !
      Within Europe – Blighty be ‘stuffed’ – The EU, CE, and their Courts.
      Within Blighty – Albion be ‘stuffed’ – the West Lothian Question.

  38. RDM
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Hold on English!

    Wasn’t Henry VIII from Pembroke (One of four kingdoms united with the English Kingdoms), and didn’t he actually say or mean “His Kingdoms”

    in

    “…this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King…”

    And this constitutes the initial Union.

    Into which, the Scots then formed the Union, with the minority taking the seat, King James?

    Regards,

    RDM

  39. David Langley
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Now you are talking my language John.

  40. David Langley
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    If we were granted a referendum, what question would you put to the electorate? I am worried about this idea, we can pick some parts of a treaty to be repatriated. Legally this is no good as we are bound by the treaty to defer to the supranational powers and all the Aquis, we cannot take out only put in, so it would have to be a return to the agreements where we are friends and contributing partners to our European trade area, and obviously cooperating in mutually beneficial trade partnerships. No more paying the French CAP or destroying our fisheries through the CFP etc. Agreed?

  41. Mike Stallard
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    72 replies agreeing with you ought to tell us all something about the popularity of the EU in this sceptred isle.

  42. matthu
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    JR you say you prefer the option of ‘renegotiate powers to be repatriated’ and then to hold a referendum on that.

    The problem I see with that approach is that it is bound to include a whole new treaty a la Lisbon which would be totally incomprehensible in the timeframe allowed and one which the electorate would be urged in good faith to accept is good (or better) for the UK than exiting the EU.

    Like all previous EU treaties, the devil would be in the detail.

  43. Posted June 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    We have read recently from both parties ( yes the bloody coilition being one party ) that they are considering a referendum on the EU at the next election. Well smoothy Cameron had it in the Tory manifesto to gain power in the last election which people went along with but as soon as he was in as PM he renaged on giving it so that could still be the case in 2015. Promise but not provide, devious, arrogant people.

    Reply Not so. Mr Cameron did not offer a referendum in the last Manifesto. He offered one on Lisbon, up til Lisbon was ratified, and then withdrew it before the election because the Treaty had gone through.

    • Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

      That should be a painful story to narrate, JR! It’s facts are accurate & deeply not TRUE.

  44. Posted June 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    It sounds good to me, although I question this, ” The EU has violated and diminished that imperial sovereignty.” For without the UK accepting the various Treaties, the EU could not have got anywhere near that imperial Sovereignty. To me, the culprits that violtaed our Sovereignty are our own Members of the House of Commons.

    All ready stated above but worth repeating is, The 1559 Act of Supremacy states…
    ‘that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities’

    Which is again restated in the 1689 Bill of Rights , both part of our constitutional law, and which no sane person can claim to not have been usurped by the EU treaties, especially Lisbon . To usurp our constitutional law is an act of Treason.”

    Above all in putting the EU before a sworn Oath of Allegiance is indeed violation of that Oath, the greatest betrayal of all.

    I do not ask for a referendum on the EU, for I no longer trust a true and fair referendum held here in the United Kingdom and yes, it grieves me to write that, but ’tis true. I recognise that we have THREE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES that all want to remain in the EU yet they still want to be voted into power, have their money and vast expenses, yet all of them have to obey foreign laws/legislation like the rest of us. This suggestion below is one method they could get the trust of the people back.

    As a UK Government took us into the EU, it is up to a UK Government to take us out. And we cannot afford to wait for much longer. We had no referendum to go in to the European Community in 1972, we do not need one to come out. If a UK government wants to gain credibility or respect or to even govern this Country ever again, it should make the decision to repeal the European Communities Act 1972/3 immediately and then repudiate all EU Treaties.

    However, I suggest that we should have a referendum after we are OUT of the EU altogether, to see “if we have done the right thing-similar to the Referendum we had when we were asked if we wanted to remain in the Treaty of Rome in 1975.

  45. Barbara Stevens
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Well now we all know the old laws are still in action, why is it we don’t just dump the lot, the EU I mean? Or is it the people we elect? It appears so. What does that tell us? It tells us we shouldn’t vote for any of the main three come the next election as they won’t adhere to what the country wants. Cameron is letting us down, the Conservative party down, and all those who had faith in him and have been let down. Its plain to see from this article we should look to who will give us what we want, and it’s certainly not the present lot. Churchill must be turning in his grave. Cameron has come out today, while in Berlin, saying we will not join the Euro, we won’t allow further intergration and loss of more powers, I assume that’s what he meant; well done, but it does not go far enough. Words have become used and not believed anymore, faith has been destroyed, and anger is rising. Even Cameron now knows he cannot keep denying us that referendum as the euro burns, and countries falter, how long now till it cracks open wide and all hell lets loose. Be done with it Cameron, give us the vote and we’ll do the work for you, and make the decisions, and we should by right.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      Here’s what Churchill said during a speech at Zurich University (September 19, 1946).

      We must build a kind of United States of Europe.
      http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

      I doubt he would object to the EU.
      Reply: He went on to say that the UK should not be part of it.

      • Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

        Ha!

      • uanime5
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        Nothing in Churchill’s speech indicates that the UK shouldn’t be part of the United States of Europe. He compares it to the British Empire, says the British Empire should support it, and talks about France and Germany being important parts but never says that the UK shouldn’t be part of it.

        I don’t believe Churchill ever stated what the UK should do should the British Empire break out because it must have seems so unlikely.

        Reply: Try reading his Fulton Missouri speech, which complements the European one, which makes the UK’s position clear. The UK would be out of the European Union, in her own Commonwealth. Also read his History of the English Speaking Peoples (not the European peoples, you note) which concludes that the UK’s ultimate destiny is in a union of the English speaking world.

  46. Frances Matta
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    “If the UK wants a different relationship with the EU it merely has to assert some political will.”
    But Cameron won’t. He and his Chancellor are both supporting more “Europe” and that will inevitably lead to a “Tobin tax.” Hollande is determined to impose it. We have no friends with any clout in the EU and we never did.
    OUT.

  47. uanime5
    Posted June 7, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    John your account of history is incorrect.

    Henry VIII wanted an annulment because Catherine of Aragon couldn’t give him a son and he believed Anne Boleyn would; claiming the marriage wasn’t valid was a convenient excuse. When this failed Henry bullied the clergy, made himself Head of the Church of England, had his marriage to Catherine annulled, and married Anne.

    I don’t know why you’d think legal cases were appealed to Rome. Asking the Pope for an annulment isn’t the appeal of a legal case as the court’s weren’t involved and it wasn’t a legal appeal. Also Rome wasn’t overruling any English decision because the matter was at the Pope’s discretion. It’s clear you’ve distorted what actually happened to fit with your anti-European views.

    Condemning the EU for diminishing imperial sovereignty , while praising Parliament for doing the exact same thing is blatant hypocrisy. Either Parliament and the EU were wrong for diminishing imperial sovereignty or neither were wrong.

    Finally your claim that the EU will give the UK a new relationship that benefit the UK in exchange for thing is deluded. The UK is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the EU.

    • Epigenes
      Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      Your post is a mixture of false allegations, showing a complete misunderstanding of Redwood’s article and incomprehensible garbage – the last para is not even English .

      You obviously have no knowledge of the history of Henry VIII or the period in question or the due process in law to which Redwood alludes.

      • uanime5
        Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        If the last paragraph isn’t in English then what language is it in?

        I have far more knowledge of this period in history and due process than you do. The process of getting an annulment was a religious one, not a legal one, thus it was not subject to the courts.

    • Posted June 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

      Right. ENGLAND is in THE position to abrogate all illegal & false arrangements made in contradiction of HM’s Realm. Please vote for (sal)mond & start paying for your own tins of beer!

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted June 11, 2012 at 1:36 am | Permalink

      Do let me understand the European hierarchy according to uanime5. I think it goes like this:

      God is superior to the pope.
      The pope is head of the Roman Catholic church and is in some matters infallible.
      The Roman Catholic church is dominant in the European Union.
      The European Union is superior to Member States (or nations in plainspeak)
      Judges are superior to the parliaments of Member States (but only those judges that acknowledge the superiority of the EU)
      Voters and citizens are right at the bottom of the heap.

      There are quite a lot of things wrong with this hierarchy but let’s start at the top.

      THERE IS NO GOD.

  48. Posted June 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    That’s exactly the point though isn’t it. A simple Act of Parliament could repeal the power of the EU. The simple fact is that the British people have never elected a Eurosceptic majority of MP’s in parliament and (if current opinion polls are anything to go by) show no desire to.

    If eurosceptics want to pull Britain out of the EU then all they have to do is elect of majority of eurosceptic MP’s in parliament. The keep failing to do so however. And all UKIP does is split the anti-EU vote and get more europhile MP’s. And so a europhile parliament keeps voting for europhile laws and measures.

    It’s not difficult. Anti-EUers claim to be in favour of national sovereignty but repeatedly fail to face up to the fact that we have a pro-EU policy just because the British sovereign parliament has and has always had since 1970 a consistently pro-EU majority.

  49. Alan Hill
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    “……..with monumental incompetence in handling its formidable firepower against a small and lightly armed opposition…….”

    Monumental Incompetence is one of the things that we’re still good at.

  50. Posted June 8, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    To Stephen W. Having voted for the Conservatives all my life-I trusted them. I believed them. I was a fool to do so. I know NOW,without doubt, although not at the time- that Edward Heath lied , plus the referendum offered to the people was after we were taken in to the EC/EEC/EU. I, along with many other people did not vote Conservative in the last general election. This is why we have a coalition Government the LIBDEMs having more say than the Conservatives because the Cons want to keep the LibDEms on board. And so it also was is with a Coalition of anything.

    If the people that are true to their Oaths of Allegiance-the ones you Stephen, call Eurosceptic-will indeed triumph in the end because more people now-more than ever before see no point at all in paying or voting for MP’s that just want the money, the vast expenses YET DO NOT WANT TO GOVERN THIS COUNTRY ACCORDING TO ITS LONG STAGSTANING COMMON LAW CONSTITUTION. The people certainly cannot contribute financially in any way to foreigners Governing this Country either-so Stephen, there is much to think about. The EU was always-right from the very beginning, to become one State of European Union and that can be confirmed by reading old Hansard before we joined.

    Here for you Stephen, Mr George Brown August 1961 “.” Quoteing —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug., 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1490]. 1758 That is not what Ministers were saying a short time ago. For example, only a short while ago—this has been quoted, but I refer to it again—the President of the Board of Trade was saying: Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration… But he went on to say: The whole idea of the Six, the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.] That is a fine aspiration, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves.
    If I knew of this-SO DID EVERYONE THAT HAS PASSED THROUGH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SINCE 1972 WHEN WE JOINED THE EU.

  51. Posted July 13, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Any person born here in the United Kingdom it is as if they had already sworn an oath of Allegiance, for from that moment they have the protection of the Crown. Whether they like it when trhey grow up or not-that is how it is. As we take up certain positions in life even from the Guides and Scouts, our forces or take up the honoured position of being a Member of Parliament or Member of the British Government all have to swear a Solemn Allegiance to the British Crown. The Crown obviously represents the people and our Country. Violation of the Crown is the greatest betrayal of all-’tis treason.

    From the very moment Edward Heath ratified the Treaty of Rome-knowing full well its contents, as they all did in the 1960’s and proof is there in the Debates in Hansard which I have quoted many times, plus having said to the people “There will be no loss of essential Sovereignty” which he admitted later on TV, was indeed a lie, he should have been charged with treason.

    And so it has gone on with each Treaty Ratified. The only way for me to look up to any Prime Minister, to respect one even again, would be to make the decision to with free us from foreign Rule. While Mr Cameron says he can bring powers back, we have watched while he has given-since he has been in power, more powers away.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page