Will the Faull, Weiler, Sarmiento Brexit Plan work? What will?

Three eminent, self-confessed Remainers have published a legal plan to avoid Prime Minister Johnson’s cliff-edge of No Deal on 31 October. Law Professors Joseph Weiler, NYU and lately of Florence EUI, Daniel Sarmiento of Complutense University of Madrid and Sir Jonathan Faull, formerly head of the European Commission Legal Service, published their plan called ‘An offer the UK and EU cannot refuse‘ on the constitutional law site, Verfassungsblog.

If adopted, they hoped it could avoid the cliff edge if the UK’s rejected the Irish Backstop and the EU refused to yield. The Irish Backstop is a guarantee that the UK will respect Customs Union law for trade flows until the British introduced some technological or legal alternatives that would ensure the Irish Peace was not threatened and no customs posts would be re-established.

The proposal included features to guarantee both the integrity and autonomy of the EU’s and UK’s respective customs and their regulatory territories. It aimed to do so without a Customs Union between the two parties or a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

How?

The core of the proposal was the mutual recognition of both legal systems in the courts of both Ireland and the UK. An Irish judge would make sure the animal, product or service followed UK law if the destination was UK. A UK judge would make sure goods destined for Ireland and the EU would follow EU Regulations. The Proposal evoked considerable resonance in several media, both positive and negative; many questions were asked to which they addressed in a FAQ.

Prof Weiler writes that both legal systems must be equal and there would be no ‘outsourcing’:

“The current Backstop as it stands would already rely extensively on the integrity of the UK legal system and UK officials to collect the Common External Tariff of the projected Customs Union and to ensure that UK manufactured goods comply with the EU regulatory standards to give but two of many examples.
Is this, then, not “outsourcing”? In some cases as part of the Backstop the Union has insisted on on-site inspection and supervision by Union officials. That is included in our alternative Proposal too, albeit, importantly, on a reciprocal basis. In effect our proposal introduces all the cooperation procedures introduced in the Backstop, but it adds further instruments, as well as domestic remedies, including criminal penalties, to ensure effective enforcement.

Furthermore, the proposal incorporates a dispute settlement mechanism based on the withdrawal agreement’s enforcement mechanisms. Overall, then, this can hardly be considered to be any more “outsourcing” of the customs union than the Backstop itself envisages – in fact it is less. And, not to be forgotten, the UK under the Proposal would be “outsourcing” control of the integrity of its customs and regulatory territory to the Republic.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is somewhat perverse to characterize an arrangement based on reciprocal enforcement, joint inspections, close cooperation and mutual trust as being a form of unacceptable “outsourcing” to a third state. And if the premise of any agreement is that one cannot trust the other partner, the Backstop is doomed.”

Will it work? My answer is NO.

I base that on Schuman’s own words. It fails to understand the origin, purpose and future of the supranational system of democracy and law that Robert Schuman created with the founding fathers in the 1950s. That brought peace.

But the system was not completed democratically because of the antidemocratic opposition of Charles de Gaulle, an autocrat who seized power in France throughout the 1960s. Unfortunately afterwards instead of restoring the original Community system to its full glory, subsequent politicians showed themselves to be neo-Gaullists who preferred wheeler-dealing in closed Councils to transparent democracy and proper elections.

Why won’t the professors’ scheme work?

What may be sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander but the judicial source of decision-making for the EU-27 goose is not the same as the source for an independent, post-Brexit UK gander or any other third State.
Gaullist smoke still blows over reality. You either have a fully working, democratic Community system with its law machinery fully integrated by the people's consent or you revert to War.

1. Complexity. Take the case of the 2013 horse-meat scandal when 70,000 horses in N Ireland went missing and ended up in lasagna and other food products. It was found that the ‘beef’ was not only horse and pig meat but also chicken feathers. (https://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2013/02/21/elysee2-horsemeat-fraud-and-de-gaulle%e2%80%99s-cuckoo/) The ‘meat’ travelled across the EU through possibly half a dozen countries from Romania, Luxembourg to UK (and other) dining tables.
What would have happened if UK and/or N Ireland were not members of the same legal system whether for quality control or ’severe criminal fines’?

2. Two different levels of legal order. The Community system is based on what Schuman called an independent international judiciary, a supranational Court.
National Courts are based on judicial principles of natural law (honest analysis, fairness etc) that should be universally recognized but also on determining the material interests of the parties. Interests are determined inside a national context. Interests differ across borders and among individuals of different backgrounds. Who owned the chicken feathers? Were they sold legally? How, where and when did the pig turn to beef?
National courts are competent in analysing and judging the interests within their domains. They are not generally recognized beyond their borders.
Mutual recognition and control would have to involve not only UK with Ireland but all the other EU Member States. At each stage it would have to be identified as being for ‘UK export’ or ‘EU export’ as various, multiple -origin ingredients made their way to their final designation of UK table-ready or EU.
This sort of multiple origin and value-added is likely to be more complicated for foods and its associated criminal activities than cars and machinery.

3. Backstop guards integrity. It is not a matter of the EU not trusting the Brits but guarding the integrity of its independent supranational judiciary.
The backstop is not a bargaining chip but a guarantee of the integrity of the whole legal order.

4. Undermining Europe’s purpose. Removing the backstop is even more dangerous than letting the integrity of the European legal order go down the plughole.
The backstop is the plug to retain Europeans’ pledge for No More War inside the same Community system.
The European system was set up to make war ’not only unthinkable but materially impossible’ (Schuman Declaration).
The EEC was designed to prevent Trade War turning to hot war, and Euratom was to prevent Atomic war by having community ownership of fissile materials (www.eurdemocracy.com ).
This is why the European Court is the final authority (Luxembourg for Community matters and Strasbourg for democratic Human Rights.)

5. Governments change laws and systems fail. Legal systems are also subject to deterioration and decay. In UK the parliamentary customs of Erskine May are changed and undermined within a span of months. Inevitably the legislative process too.
The first danger signal for Europeans is in Human Rights violation by government systems. When the national system is found wanting, there is a possibility of the Council of Europe suspending the Member State. Greece was suspended under the Colonels.
When the Greek legal order changed, mutuality was impossible. Recognition of the Human Rights Convention by autocrats meant nothing. (Politicians do cheat and lie!)
That is why mutual recognition of European and third State systems is not possible. It is incompatible with a single source European Legal Order.

The Schuman Solution.

The only proven way to ensure that both sides in a dispute are content with the outcome is to make sure that their rights are respected — starting with human rights.

What is obvious to most thinking citizens but is not blindingly obvious to politicians is that citizens’ human rights and fundamental freedoms have been totally ignored ever since the Maastricht Treaty. Politicians have changed the original Community treaties designed to stop war into a power grab often against the people’s will, public opinion and opposite to what to the people say in referendums.

When the British were asked to vote on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union, it was totally illegal. They had never agreed to the Lisbon Treaty. They had not agreed to the European Union in the first place. They had only agreed to the European Community by referendum in 1975.

The 1975 referendum is still the people’s voice on the matter. When in 2016 Britons voted to leave the “European Union” it means that for them the Treaty on European Union is dead! Europeans want to revert to the democratic European Community.

The French and Dutch voted in referendums against the articles that were latter incorporated in the Lisbon treaty.

And the British referendum on the Constitutional treaty, that had been set for the period after this, was withdrawn. Politicians said there was no chance of UK and many other countries agreeing to it. The Constitutional Treaty had to be withdrawn. But it wasn’t.

It was re-introduced as the Lisbon Treaty against the wishes of practically all Member States!

Europe’s new constitutional arrangement –that politicians acknowledge had no public support and would be rejected in a vote — was imposed by a cartel of political parties acting as autocrats. This is a POLITBURO system. It owes its heritage both to de Gaulle and the Soviet system!

What should be done? So first, Britons have to vote on whether they agree to the Lisbon Treaty before any action can be taken about withdrawal. Governments can’t use Article 50 if the Treaty is not authorised by referendums. Governments of all colours refused to recognize this elementary human right of the citizens to vote their assent or dissent. They need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Other countries should vote on it too. Politicians refused them the chance.

Britons also need to have a referendum on withdrawal from the Euratom treaty. The British government says that UK is leaving Euratom. But the Government never announced that it was part of the 2016 referendum. No publication mentioned that it was under consideration. No minister said UK would withdraw from Euratom if citizens voted to leave the EU. And no ballot paper in the Referendum of June 2016 mentioned leaving Euratom.

If Europe is to have a realistic future, the citizens must have their rights respected and leaders should be replaced with honest ones.

PM May and Parliament get Petition about their "Great Brexit Fraud"

MPs Reject Petition exposing the "Great Brexit Fraud" but Government gets the message. 

Is That Petition Clear?

Apparently not. A panel of 11 MPs again rejected my Petition on the "Great Brexit Fraud". The Petition was nevertheless sent to Prime Minister Theresa May and key Brexit ministers and committees. 

The Petitions panel said its reason for rejection was that it was not sure what I was asking! The panel is composed of five Conservative MPs, five Labour and one Scottish nationalist. 

They should have been well aware of the background. 

Prime ministers of both Tory and Labour parties pledged that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was necessary to recognize it in law and constitutionally. They promised a referendum to deal with "massive" changes leading to a "European Super-State".
In other words the Lisbon treaty makes a major dislocation to British democracy and the UK constitution. It creates powers ABOVE the nation State -- directly contrary to the founding principles of the Community system. Robert Schuman was clear: the nation State was the final arbiter of the powers delegated in a Community. The people must be free to choose.

The legal need for referendums about the destiny of the country is not in dispute. Earlier, UK Referendums on changes affecting the Constitution were universally agreed as necessary without demur. They were held for democratic assent in establishing Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They considered a referendum necessary for asking the Scottish population about independence in 2014. 

It goes without saying that changes or destruction to the democratic constitution of the whole United Kingdom must be subject to the people's voice. That is why all recent governments were unanimous in promising a referendum on the EU treaty. 

But neither Labour or Tory/Liberal Democrat, Tory or Tory/Democratic Unionist governments ever provided a referendum on the European Treaty and how it differed from the European Community. These constitutional changes have been made since 2000 and well before. They culminated in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. 

Instead, the Conservative government had a referendum based on article 50 of the treaty -- that assumes the treaty was already legal! To my mind that is a scam. 

Add to this outrage the fact that the treaty and all articles with few exceptions were rejected in French and Dutch referendums when the treaty was called the Constitutional treaty. To say that there is any substantial difference between the treaty rejected by these referendums and the Lisbon Treaty forced through without a referendum is, as the Economist wrote, "pitifully unconvincing." 

So let us just admit the Fraud. Cheat the people and they vote against you. So let us then logically analyse how Brexit became inevitable. That is the first step to repair confidence.

The Government is now in a deep, black hole of a Brexit dilemma. No one can agree about what to do. 

• How does the country escape financial ruin if all euro-based trading leaves UK and the City? 
• Legal collapse (No replacement agencies are in place, nor treaties)? 
• Industrial pauperisation?
• How can a country look into the future with every British and European regulation legally unsafe?  

So what can be done about it?

• Why on earth would an honest government try to hide the fact that the treaty was soundly rejected in French and Dutch referendums? 
• That Governments promised one in the UK? 
• That Britons are still waiting for that? 
• Then to add insult to illegality the government is wrong in using an article in a treaty that first requires a referendum to activate it?

Surely it would be logical and necessary to examine the CAUSE of the problem? It needs to secure the future.

The Petition panel rejection allowed me to accomplish my main goal -- to bring the illegality of the Brexit referendum decisively to the attention of the Prime Minister and her main Brexit ministers. It is now up to them to make a decision. History will judge them -- and maybe the Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Strasbourg.
They should be aware of the consequences for parliamentary democracy and long-term lack of trust in UK institutions. 

Both UK and Brussels are descending on a dangerous path to anarchy and oligarchy. Popularist demonstrations and hostile populist governments are the warning signal for even greater disorder.  

What I did was to ask the Petition panel for an appeal of their decision. No mechanism is provided. So I wrote the following letter -- with copies to the Prime Minister and four main Secretaries of State (Barclay, Lidington, Hunt, Fox) involved in Brexit, Brexit committee chairmen in the Commons and Lords, plus those former ministers to whom I sent my book in 2016 a few months after the Referendum result. That included Boris Johnson and David Davis.  

A second petition on Euratom and Brexit is still under consideration by the panel. Euratom covers nuclear non-proliferation, safety, energy policy and medicine. It has been successfully applied since 1973.  

The petition requires the Government to reverse its Article 50 Letter about leaving Euratom as it gave no notice or means to reject an exit. It had no debate. Before the vote it did not state in Parliament nor publish anything about leaving Euratom. Nor did it say anything about Euratom on the referendum ballot paper. Click this link to sign the petition:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/240327/sponsors/new?token=NxmQu89aiqTQ7r14A7oq

Dear Sir or Madam,

{My petition is entitled } “Parliament and HMG must retract Article 50 Letter. Legal basis in treaty is flawed”.

I was surprised to be informed yesterday that my petition had been rejected by the petitions committee.

It was stated that "It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do. Petitions need to call on the Government or Parliament to take a specific action. We're not sure exactly what you'd like the Government or Parliament to do. The Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009."

I believe I was eminently clear about what the government and Parliament should do. I enumerated the following two points as 

"Action required by Parliament and Government.. 

1. Withdraw or suspend Article 50 Letter

2. Hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to validate so it can be used for its Article 50." 

I also wrote to the Prime Minister Theresa May in 2016, four Secretaries of State concerned (Trade, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Brexit) and a number of MPs on the Brexit committees explaining the issues involved. I sent a copy of my book "Brexit and Britain's Vision for Europe" to each of them. 

A parliamentary discussion is urgently needed to review the legality of action that HMG and Parliament have already taken. Both major parties when in Government and Opposition said that a referendum was necessary to validate the EU Treaty. It can be concluded therefore that a referendum was considered legally indisputable to them. 

And then they reneged. 

The reasons they did not go through with this pledge and legal obligation is the crux of the debate that is now required by the public and the signatories of the petition. It also provides the solution to the Brexit dilemma.

Constitutionally and legally, the Lisbon Treaty needs to be properly validated according to their own promises, commitments and "cast-iron" guarantees of action. The EU treaty has changed not only the British constitution but added new institutions and power in Brussels "massively" modifying our relationship with Europe earlier (to quote Mr Cameron). 

The previous European Community arrangement was subject to approval by referendum in 1975. No further change can be made from the Community system without a further referendum. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty completely changes the European Community system so radically. Both EEC and Euratom had articles (approved by the public in the 1975 referendum) that the treaties were in force for an unlimited period. 

That means that Brexit under Article 50 of a subsequent treaty is ruled out. Permanence of the democratic link to the Continent and commitment to democratic solutions in open democratic institutions cannot be overruled by a legally unsafe treaty, consistently opposed by a majority of the population. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty and its earlier reincarnation were roundly rejected by other Member States in their referendums. 

The petition would also provide the means to resolve the blockage in Parliament on the Withdrawal Treaty -- where no majority can be found to move forward. A clarification of the UK constitutional position could provide a breathing space to consolidate UK policy. A judicial review of our democratic relations with Europe and its democracies is essential for a stable near- and long-term future. Britain's voice is crucial for democratic reform of the European institutions to make them more open and accountable. The Democratic Deficit that has been on the political agenda for three or four decades needs to be tackled seriously.

I would therefore request that you supply me with

(a) the details about how this decision was made and clarifying the grounds it gave for rejection.

(b) the time and place the decision was made,

(c)  the names of MPs who voted, with their reasoning.

(d) the system for making an Appeal because a decision was not impartial.

Yours etc

  

The GREAT BREXIT FRAUD -- a short history

The Brexit referendum has already cost the country millions perhaps billions of pounds. Tax-payers’ money. Your money. The Pound has sunk in value. The stock market has been hit. Industries are in a quandary. Some have moved out. Some have had to build or rent extra warehouse space because of the threat of Just-In-Time supply schedules will be broken by customs delays. Workers have been laid off. Harbours have been dredged in order to find new shipping capacity. It has also left many families in tears and fears at the consequences. The EU-27 have also spent millions.

Who gets the bill? Who is to blame for the Brexoshambles?

Who called the Referendum? That was David Cameron, the Prime Minister in 2006 and again in 2016.

But the reason I would call it a CHEAT and not a CRIME is that it is unclear still if it was due to ignorance or political charlatanism. But it certainly depleted public and private treasuries. It sapped national confidence. It turned the island into a sack of fighting cats.

I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. But one thing is clear: All the heart-burn, anxieties and worries of millions of citizens and costs of billions were unnecessary!

How was the whole Referendum Operation concocted as a FRAUD? If it were purely a political problem, why is the British Parliament in turmoil? Politicians know how to wheel and deal.

This is a problem of a different order. Where is common sense? Where is the national interest? Why do the British have what has been called a Zombie government, a prime minister supported by her party but with no policy?

They have all been caught in a trap. It is a trap meant to throw right and wrong into stark silhouette. Robert Schuman‘s noble design to have honest government in Europe dates from July 1948, the turning point of all European political history. it is a date that today’s leaders in Europe refused to acknowledge.

But first we need to analyse how Europeans got caught in the trap. Why are those rendered impotent in the parliaments guilty of dishonesty?

Why are all the MPs of any party nonplussed about how to proceed?

The reason is they have all been FOOLED and SCAMMED. They don’t know who is to blame. Nor the real problem. Both Brexiteers and Remainers are right to a certain extent. And the more they believe they are acting correctly, the more they strain every muscle to their direction. They also voted to enter the honesty or integrity trap.

But they can’t agree on common action. The can’t agree on the EU Withdrawal Act. They can’t agree on ruling out a no-deal exit. They can’t agree about a further referendum. (It might be followed by yet another and another if the result was “unsatisfactory”. In 2016 UKIP’s Nigel Farage said that if the Brexit campaign lost by 48 to 52%, it would be “unfinished business“. A two-thirds majority, he said, was needed to avoid a neverendum.)

And they can’t agree on hardly anything. The deadline of 29 March looms large.

They are just like the trickster who tied two mules together and placed them facing two piles of straw. They died of over-exertion and starvation!

They have all been made victims and participants in an elaborate political fraud. The politicians have been hoisted on their own petard. So have the whole British public. They are all so deceived that they are walking around like the blind bashing each other with sticks.

Have all the politicians been struck mad? Hokus Pokus! If it were entertainment we would call it a conjurer’s trick.

To understand the trick, we have to analyse the sleight of hand. There is more than a single trick involved or a single victim. How did the politicians trick themselves? How do we get back to reality? We need to go back a decade or more — when the politicians of Europe were conducting their own nefarious trick operations. They failed.

It was called the European Constitution. The idea of dreamy-eyed, shallow-brained utopians was to turn the three European Communities and associated technocracies into a Federal State. Federal States have constitutions don’t they? Wouldn’t that give politicians new powers? It would also shut the people out from decision-making.

The Constitution was an illusion, right from the start. Valery Giscard d’Estaing was in charge of the operation. Unfortunately for the federalists he let the cat out of the bag– several times. It was a big-time SCAM.

He declared that, although it was called a Treaty establishing a Constitution for the Europe, what he was designing was NOT a Constitution but a Treaty. It was a ConstitutionALTreaty, he said. It was a treaty like all the others that proceed it. Only this time instead of being called Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice it was called Constitutional. That word ‘constitution‘ was just spin.

Constitutions are not created by treaties. Any constitutional lawyer knows that. Treaties are agreements between States, usually for regulating matters like trade. Constitutions date back to the earliest civilizations. Even before the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon around 1700 BCE, there were constitutional codes like that of Esh-Nunna in central Mesopotamia several centuries earlier. One of the oldest codes extant dates from around 2100 BCE, the third dynasty Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu. Older ones are known to have existed.

Forging a European Constitution that cheats nations of their own constitutions takes a lot of impudence and affrontery. Thieves are trying to bury four thousand years of the history of civilization! That audacity is why Europe is in a mess today.

Constitutions embrace and describe the functioning of the whole State and the principles that govern it. They have power to override all laws and law-makers, domestic and external. Constitutions, to work well or at all, have to have the support of the people and other associations and institutions. That demands justice.

If a group of people try to usurp the powers of the people in a State, it is called Tyranny. That’s what the Americans objected to in 1776.

The so-called Constitutional Treaty, despite its frippery, was just a treaty. it could have been named after a city, like Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice.

And in fact it later was! Lisbon!

It was really a power grab by power-hungry politicians to take powers from the citizens without any commensurate democratic control. The Community was based on the free choice of citizens and nations.

Ah democratic control! Legitimacy!

That’s where Prime Minister Tony Blair came unstuck too. In order to get the Constitutional Treaty validated by the States, it had to be passed by the Parliaments. And it was a Biggie. So it had to have a referendum in nearly all States.

Mr Blair promised twice that there would be a referendum of the British people. But somehow he did not get around to have a referendum. Mr Cameron, then in opposition, denounced the “massive transfer of powers” of the Treaty. Parliament laid down a Bill for the European Union Act 2005 for a Referendum on the treaty. The question was to be:

Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?

The bill was first introduced during the parliamentary session of 2004/05 and received a second reading. It fell at the end of that parliament. The bill was reintroduced in the new Blair parliament in the 2005/06 session. However it was withdrawn after its first reading by Jack Straw on 6 June 2005 following “no” votes in referendums that were held on ratifying the European Constitution in France and in the Netherlands. Why? Didn’t Britons have an equal right to express their wish?

The British voter have had no chance to voice their opinion on any treaty since 1975. Vast changes of undemocracy have taken place since then. Fortunately for Europe, others did. French electors saw through this folly. In 2005 they rejected the Constitutional Treaty by an impressive 55% majority.

OOOH LA LA, the French! That makes a difference. Some nations think they are more equal than others! It got worse. The Dutch voted the Constitutional Treaty down by an even larger 61% majority. The French had a cultural concept of the Social Contract from Rousseau. But this was not a question of a majority oppressing a minority, that democrats feared. It was a clear signal that the majority was sending up a warning flare that the whole of French society should reject this “Constitution” as it hid overt and disguised dangers to democracy.

Lined up to vote were six other States. They had been left to the end of the calendar for a reason. Momentum. They were less enthusiastic. They had democratic traditions. They didn’t seem to like the treaty: Czechs, Danes, Irish, Poles, Portuguese and last of all were the British!

But the treaty was now exposed as a deceit for duplicitous despotism. Still, the fraudsters did not give up. They still hoped it could become the new Constitution, even by the bizarre antidemocratic edict of the European Commission President Barroso. He said that it would just take a majority of States! That’s like saying that if you have a dozen people and seven say a bottle contains healthy liquid and five say it is poisonous, then it is all right for all to drink it.

Tyrannies are deadly. States are Sovereign and guardians of their own welfare. What sort of democrat takes chances with a disguised dictatorship trying to be kind and cuddly? Some people are not fooled by politicians’ smooth talk.

It soon became clear even to Barroso that arithmetically the Constitutional Treaty was dead. Or was it? Three years later the politicians -- meeting of the Heads of State and Government (not yet officially the European Council) behind closed doors as usual -- declared that they were going to raise the corpse, add more articles, and call it the Reform Treaty. All that voting of the people, they said, was in vain. This time there would be nothing as inconvenient and ham-fisted as voting. Politicians, the main beneficiaries, would force the treaty through parliaments without any need of the people to worry their pretty heads. Governments had majorities and their party machines revved up to obey. Conscience went out the window. The party whips have ways to break your fingers if you don’t vote on party lines!

The effect was the same as if the Constitutional Treaty had been passed — against the wishes of the people. That is tyranny. Despotism by deceit and democratic duplicity. It created a new secretive oligarchy called the European Council. The people never agreed to this. The founding fathers thought it should never be created. They had good reasons.

But the politicians said:

The people need not worry about what they discussed there — the doors would be closed to the public. But to reassure them we will from time to time issue decrees and press communiques.

The Reform Treaty arose like a phoenix from the ashes of the “Constitution” warship that the people had sunk by their cannonade of Noes and Nons. It was the spitting image of the Constitutional Treaty. Not surprising. Many articles were word-for-word identical. The pirate ship was renamed by Mr Barroso and his friends as the Lisbon Treaty. That’s a quick card shuffle designed to add an extra bit of confusion to the trickery.

There is no denying the gravity of the treachery and international turpitude. A major change of the whole governance system of Europe was rejected by Europeans in referendums. Then, in spite of the people’s voice, the governments acting in secret, colluded to restore the very same treaty and add a few more poisonous articles. Instead of putting this to the people, they forced the treaty through parliament in such a way they avoided all electoral responsibility. The representatives, the servants, of the people treated their masters as fools.

This is a monstrous abuse of powers — paralleled for those who want a historic precedent — with the seizure of power by Adolf Hitler who used the Enabling Laws in Weimar Germany. He then wiped out all oppositional parties. Perhaps he considered them too “popularist”.

Mr Cameron then promised that if elected he would ensure that a referendum would take place on the EU Treaty. But when he made a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, he dropped the idea. He was hissed for this hypocrisy. Then for the next election he promised that if re-elected he would hold a referendum.

In a September 2007 article for The Sun newspaper, Mr. Cameron promised,

“Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.”

In 2009 Mr Cameron, still in Opposition, introduced a Bill in Parliament for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called for the public to ‘pile up pressure‘ for a referendum. Too much power would pass to Brussels, Mr Cameron told BBC. He said he would not let matters rest if he took office as Prime Minister. he said major constitutional issues were involved; Brussels “was in the endless process of building a superstate.”
The Labour party record is even worse. It twice submitted a Bill for a referendum to Parliament. It twice abandoned it. The lookalike Lisbon Treaty was then championed by Prime Minister Tony Blair but it was signed reluctantly and a little bit after the official ceremony by his replacement, Gordon Brown on 13 December 2007. Mr Blair had promised a referendum on it. But, Mr Brown said he would not do it. To say the Lisbon Treaty was different from the Constitution is “pitifully unconvincing.”

The Lisbon Treaty was therefore ratified by Parliament only WITHOUT any public assent in June 2008. But due to the Irish rejection in a referendum did not come into force until 1 December 2009.

The record of both British governments and three parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats, is horrendous in their criminal and constitutional disdain.

But the EU Treaty was not ratified legally because it was a major constitutional change. The last time any thing near this level of change took place was entry into the Community system. For that governments and parties agreed that the 1975 Referendum was necessary. How much more the EU treaties with their “massive changes” to Britain’s democracy? Only the Irish had the possibility to hold a referendum and they had no hesitation at first in rejecting it. What does that say about the deplorable state of democracy in Europe and the despotic attitude of its leaders.

It never needed to happen. It has set back democracy and prosperity by more than a decade.

The only remedy now lies with the Courts.