Finally! A BREXIT Solution without a THIRD Referendum!

Here is the only real Brexit solution. It requires no further referendum of the British people.

But…

It comes with a Warning!! It requires Honesty, plus Humility and Courage!

The British people have had two referendums on Europe. They don’t need a third referendum at the moment. They need politicians to listen to them. Politicians need to respect both the people and the law.

In 1975 the British people in a referendum giving mandatory instructions to the Government replied with a large majority to say that they wished to stay inside the European Community, comprising the Coal and Steel Community, the Economic Community and the non-proliferation Atomic Energy Community, Euratom.

In the meantime the European Community was changed from top to bottom. All without the people’s assent. Democratic principles were written clearly in the treaties. Schuman explained how Europe’s democracy principles should work. Open councils, elections, public control of budgets, all under the rule of law. They were subverted. Politician-pleasing protocols were added. Politicians introduced a corrupted Foreign Policy subservient to the oil cartel, Social Policy, a common currency and monetary union in violation to Community process and without full democratic assent.

They bolted the doors of the Council in defiance to the treaty articles that say it should be open to the public just like the Parliament. The secretive political cartel ignored instructions given in 1951 and subsequently that the parliament should be elected on a European scale and not as 28 separate, national elections.

On 23 June 2016 the British public replied massively in a second, long-promised but much delayed, referendum. It was an advisory plebiscite. The Government was required to take attentive note of the finely balanced result and act accordingly with circumspection and reflection.

The UK government, because of ruptures in the Conservative party, thought otherwise. A noisy, thoughtless and uninformed minority ruled the roost. “A political and economic disaster. Brussels lacks democracy. Let’s get out!” Some democrats! (The Community method helped Germany, France and other States become strong democracies and create a long-lasting peace.) They demanded an extreme solution, out of the Customs Union, out of the Free Trade Area. They included exit from Euratom. That had never been discussed in debates and documents. Neither had these British politicians analyzed how Schuman said European Democracy should work and what was needed to reform its neo-Gaullist errors.

Europe’s problem is not trade. It is Democracy!

Her Majesty’s Government was led by the nose. It postured like the autocratic Henry VIII. It had no need of clarification. It did not even need a parliamentary vote. That was arrogant overreach. It was humiliated in Court, twice.

The advisory nature of the referendum was confirmed in a landmark legal case brought by Gina Miller and others against the government. The judgement of the English High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the UK. This exposed the hypocrisy of both the UK government and the Brussels cartel. In the UK, party politics trumped national interest. In Brussels, the party cartel exposed its neo-Gaullist hatred of “Anglo-Saxons”. That ditched European law. What a pitiful shame for the Commission which is supposed to be the Honest Broker for Europe! Guardian of the treaties indeed!

The people of Europe don’t need arrogant politicians who turn advisory referendums into mandatory ones. They require that representatives should show diligent attention to their needs, and wisdom in their proposed solutions.

Neither the UK Government nor the four presidents of the Brussels politburo system showed intelligence or integrity. First the presidents of the European Commission, Parliament, European Council and Council of Ministers showed their ignorance of both European and UK law. In this they were aided by Dr Martin Selmayr, Mr Juncker’s chef de Cabinet. He has now become Europe’s most powerful bureaucrat, the Commission Secretary General.

They acted with lightning speed after the referendum results were broadcast. They hardly waited for the ink to dry on the UK ballot papers. Early in the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Joint Statement. Listen to its tone.

“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.”

When someone says you must do something rapidly however painful it may be, you should expect there is some fraud going on. So it is here. It reveals both a sadistic tendency and above all an attempted cover up.

“Quickly, just put your hand against the door and I will stick my dagger into it. You don’t have to think! But be warned: it may be painful! I just wanted to rifle your pockets! Then we can have a beer together with my money.”

The legal basis of Article 50 is as slippery as a snake in the grass. It is a scam. Corruption is afoot, big time! Stop any talk of democracy!

Secondly there is the issue of the British Constitution and dare I say it– Common Sense.

Did Prime Minister Cameron reflect enough before he resigned at 10 am on 24 June, something he said he would not do? No.

Did he renegotiate with Brussels based on righting its core democratic deficiencies? An example would be stopping the Politburo enforcing the total exclusion of a Briton from ever becoming the Commission president. No.

Did Prime Minister Theresa May reflect enough before she wrote he Article 50 letter? No.

Did the Brussels Politburo ask the UK government for thorough legal clarification? No. It took the High Court and Supreme Court to do that.

Did they ask the British people to clarify exactly what was the reason for their discontent? No. They knew. The British and most sensible Europeans had for several decades complained about the “democratic deficit” — the non-observance of basic, open democracy in Brussels.

Did they ask the umpteen British lawyers inside the Brussels apparatus exactly how they they should configure this result with the British Constitution, Magna Carta and the Convention of Human Rights? No. That has yet to come.

So what should Europeans do? They should respect both the referendums and make the necessary reforms that all democrats would agree on.

Let’s get back to basics. Democracies are as Schuman affirmed in Lincoln’s definition “the rule of the people by the people for the people.” That rule can be direct by a referendum or representative via parliamentary members acting honestly for them. Democracies are also ruled by natural justice (not arbitrary justice as in Communist and Fascist systems).

A Community of 28 democracies must follow the same rules of democracy that it imposes on the nation. So, if one member wants to change the rules about Customs Union or Free Trade, then all the members must agree by the internal rules.

The stark truth is Brussels has failed to do that. The Democratic Deficit involves the jiggery-pokery and fraud about the new structures called “the European Union” from Maastricht up to and including the Lisbon treaties. A democratic Community must have assent of all. The Lisbon Treaty (then called the Constitutional treaty) was roundly rejected by referendums in France (where a referendum is defined as the highest instance of democracy) and in the Netherlands. Britain was promised referendums for all these treaties and it was refused by the unrepresentative representatives in parliament.

So the least we can say is that for the British — and every other democrat — a treaty imposed against the people is not legitimate. It violates elementary Human Rights. So does Article 50 which is part of it and the democratically rejected Constitutional Treaty.

What should be done? If democrats want more democracy they should act for it. They don’t leave the democratic battlefield.

They should demand that

• All deliberations in the Council of Ministers should be open to the press and public. That what all the treaties say.
• European Parliamentary elections should be conducted across the whole Community area under a single Statute defining voting requirements;
• The Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions) should be fully active in legislation and be properly elected by European associations and groupings. Matters of industries, workers and consumers together with regional diversity are their responsibility in the treaties.
• The European Commission should cease being the monopolistic domain of partisan politics. It should be composed of a jury of totally independent personalities chosen by the public. It should again become the Honest Broker for Europe’s problems and for Europe’s future.

It makes no sense for the British to belly-ache about the “lack of democracy and freedom in the European Union.” They are members of the bodies. They should be leading the charge for Schuman’s democracy.

All it takes is Courage, Humility and Honesty!

Brexit, Common Law and Ancient British Laws on Referendums

For the average person the idea that, after the people had voted in the 23 June 2016 EU Referendum to be free from “Brussels Bureaucracy,” they or the UK Parliament would have no further say on details seems patently absurd. What use is freedom from Brussels if Parliament is silenced about how to proceed? Where is the justice in that?
The government of PM Theresa May saw it differently. The government could apply autocratic Royal Prerogative powers. Britons would exit immediately because the EU was just another treaty. No reference to Parliament was needed, they said. However, Democracy is central to Britons. The three European Communities and the European Union of the Lisbon Treaties have affected domestic law and improved many aspects of everyday life. Citizens’ rights are not for decapitation by a blind, angry axman. Debate sharpens Democracy and Justice.
Only 37% of electors voted to LEAVE the EU. The rest did not vote or wanted to REMAIN. The ballot paper mentioned nothing about the European Communities, such as Euratom. The House of Common Library Briefing Paper, included in a recent book, Brexit, Miller and Henry VIII, noted that the Referendum was advisory and not legally binding.

If that is the case, what advice was the public giving the Government? Was it “Reform Brussels!”? Were people fed up with the neo-Gaullist style of Brussels autocracy or trade? Decision-making – again on nearly every aspect of everyday life – occurs behind closed doors. Secret Democracy is an oxymoron. Citizens’ freedom to think and act comes first.
Secretive Governance was certainly not part of the original concept of European democracy defined by the Charter of the Community and the supranational Community, that of Coal and Steel. Both documents were signed by six founder States on 18 April 1951, after the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 and the Convention of Human Rights had laid out the broad plan. The New Europe was defined by guarantees of Freedom.
Schuman wrote in his book, Pour L’Europe that in this Democracy all the Councils and Committees would be open and under the supervision of public opinion. Why public opinion? Because only a public debate based on facts can contribute meaningfully to a real democracy. Secondly the public statements of the leaders in debate are important for the public to judge the disinterestedness of the leaders. Thirdly, the Statements in the Councils and Committees provide means for the public to hold them to account. Fourthly, politicians who distribute public tax money in private with no accountability, only encourage corruption. The Gaullist CAP spent up to 71% of Europe’s Budget on agriculture. Millions went on vanity projects.

European Democracy.
How should European democracy be constructed? How should an ancient State like the United Kingdom affirm what it considers true principles for extending democracy from its island home to participate fairly with the Continent? How should Continental States also affirm the same principles so that everyone is satisfied with open, honest management?
Today three UK institutions are involved: a national referendum, a Court and a Parliament. The recent national Referendum on EU membership was largely without precedence except for the 1975 referendum to join the three European Communities. Central government stopped referendums. They have been ended for more than a millennium in those parts of the country where they were custom. Anglo-Saxons did not have referendums.
The referendum has come into its own because of a number of factors. Political parties are divided on such matters as the EU. Some are also losing public trust among the electors. Hence referendums seem to be a fair way to make a decision. The EU one exposes deficiencies in both UK and the EU.
Referendums can be binding or advisory. The EU referendum, according to judgements Divisional Court judgement #106 and Supreme Court #119, was non-binding. It carries no legal obligation. An Act is needed. To prevent political dissension, the May Government imposed strong party discipline. Labour too. Did PM May turn the plea for open-minded democracy in Brussels into Westminster despotism? How can citizens arrive at a just solution? Is it possible?

Common Law
The situation was quite different in pre-Roman Britain. The country was divided into a number of tribal areas but they were interconnected by marriage and exchanges. That required an elaborate and effective system of law to be active to ensure justice nationally. Strabo, the early first century Greek geographer, wrote that its teachers taught the science of nature and also moral philosophy. ‘They are believed to be the most just of men, and therefore entrusted with cases affecting both individuals and the public.’ Celtic society was based on freemen who could prove they and their family had not been slaves for nine or ten generations. Those without such proven reputation, working as serfs or foreigners who were resident, did not have the same privileges of political and legal power.
Although they had kings or princes based on royal families, society refused to let kings be autocratic and above the law. They held as custom that:
The country is above the prince. Trech gwlad nag Arglwydd.
That is the prince could in no way bind the country and that the prince himself was under law. Justice ruled. How?
The ancient Triads dating back many centuries before Britain was invaded by Rome were highly developed, ethical and sustained by extensive education and reasoning in the principles of law. Julius Caesar affirms that the youth spent twenty years in the various colleges. This contrasts with the rote learning of the Romans and its military dictatorships.
Hundreds of Triads define the principles of justice. They confirm that courts existed with Jurors or Assessors who acted with the Judges. This is the system that the Britons passed on to Saxon King Alfred the Great, 849-99, (who had John Asser, the British bishop of St David’s in his learned court). It is still found in the system of Court and Jury that we have today.

A Jury of peers is the key to freedom under law. Alfred also incorporated the Ten Commandments, other quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Apostolic Letter of James, the brother of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, Acts 15. The pursuit of Wisdom was integrated into the code of 120 articles, to make it acceptable to those Welsh/ British areas who had agreed to Alfred’s overlordship.

Alfred had diplomatic relations with leaders around Europe and also with Elias III, the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Centuries earlier, the Ancient British had three institutions that allowed them to target just and lasting solutions to legal problems: a tribal or national referendum, a parliament or Assembly of respected representatives (probably tribal elders), and a Court of Justice that would analyze the legality of decisions with principles and precedent. They were the keys to prevent tyranny.
The Laws of Dyvnwal Moelmud around 400 BCE are a compilation of earlier precepts. Among them we find:
Triad 175. Three kinds of votes are valid as law: the collective vote of the Sovereign Country …enacts, abrogates or improves Law; the second is the vote of the country in the three hundred men; the third is the vote of the Court given by jurors (assessors) or elders of the nation under protection and the privilege of the Court.

Triad 98 Three tyrannical perversions of Law: fully deciding upon a case before minutely enquiring into the truth; deciding contrary to the nature and the inevitable consequences of events and times; and forcing a man to his injury where there is neither Law nor Justice requiring the decision by which he is compelled.

A Briton could call on either a tribal meeting or even a national referendum if he was refused the basic elements for dealing with his case in justice.
There are three things that must be listened to by the Court and the Judge:

• A complaint,
• A petition, and
• A reply.

The person who is denied this right has the privilege of appealing to the vote of the country, as called together by the chief of the tribe.

Once the Saxons had overrun the eastern lowlands of Loegria (England) many of these legal principles were lost. Bede describes how the Saxons first started to write out independent laws or penalties (called dooms) only in the fifth century. The Anglo-Saxons had an elective monarchy favouring decrees based on the monarch’s personal power, rather than law. However the native Celtic population (both in Anglo-Saxon and Danelaw regions) would have tried to maintain some of these ancient principles by argument and debate (which the Saxons were accustomed to) rather than by law courts with juries that they did not have. This may have been the origin of what we now call English Common Law or custom.

Magna Carta
Common Law thus predates Anglo-Saxon, Norman and also Roman law. British constitutional Common Law, Rhaith Gwlad, makes no distinction between king and freeman. Common Law became part of the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom, then its key feature.
However even at the time of Magna Carta in 1215, the British laws were still active. Indeed Magna Carta includes articles that ‘Welsh laws’ should be restored where they had been abused by the autocratic King John.

“Article 56. If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of land, liberties, or anything else in England and Wales, without lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. … Article 58 In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice accord to the laws of Wales and the said regions. Article 58 We will return the son of Llywellyn {the Great, King of Wales}, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.”

Thus the English or Saxon ‘Common Law’ has ancient British roots. A Saxon compendium of Common Law was introduced by King Alfred. He translated a later revision of the Dyvnwal laws written by Queen Marcia, Regent after the death of British king Guithilin, son of Garguic Barbtruc, son of Belinus, son of Dyvnwal. Her young son Sisillius (Welsh: Saessyllt), came to the throne in ca 358 BCE on Queen Marcia’s death.
Together with a book on the ‘Law of the monarchy,’ Queen Marcia’s work was translated into Anglo-Saxon / English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.) They became part of the Mercian laws.
When William the Conqueror arrived in 1066, he combined the some of this Anglo-Saxon law with centralizing Norman law. This contributed to English Common Law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th Century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery) which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most US states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769.
The recent Supreme Court case related to the formulation of Henry VIII Clauses. Parliament’s website defines them thus:

“The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.”

No such clause appears in the European Communities Act of 1972.
In ancient British law, a super-king or Pendragon, could assume military powers by federal agreement of tribes. Otherwise, an individual and any group could demand justice, bringing the matter before a referendum of the tribe or nation. Justice was a universal virtue and federalizing force.
The recent dispute of Miller et al vs HMG highlights a long difference between Saxon autocracy and individual justice based on an educated populace. The Henry VIII Royal Prerogative case reasserts the right of an individual to challenge injustice. This was something that Parliament – where the Government has a disciplined majority of party loyalists – was not able to do. It exposes the inadequate power of Parliament, managed by party machines, to defend itself, as well as some other vital issues that have been buried for centuries.
The interventions and written cases here indicate the irreversible nature of the devolution process and power of universal justice. It is also inevitable that the eternal principles of British law will be re-established in their glory.
Within the European supranational system any individual, association or institution may take a similar issue to the European Courts. And in the near future many will. That indicates that Justice will take force from it too.

David Heilbron Price
Brussels, 30 January 2017
Bibliography:
The Cambro-Briton, vols 1 & 2 1820-1,
Transactions of the Cymmrodorion, vols 1 & 2 1822
Rachel Bromwich: Triodd Ynys Prydain, Triads of the Island of Britain 2006
Peter Bereford Ellis: The Celtic Empire 1990, A History of the Celts 2003
David Heilbron Price: Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, 2016.
William Probert: The Ancient Laws of Cambria Triads of Dyvnwal Moelmud 1893
Peter Roberts: Dissertation on Laws of Dyfnwal Moelmud in The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain from the Welsh… 1841

Brexit Spivs in London and Brussels? Or Humpty-Dumpties?

Is HMG, Her Majesty's Government, acting like a Spiv or Humpty Dumpty?

If you don’t remember what a wartime and postwar Spiv is, the dictionary says it is a petty crook living dishonestly by his wits with a little bit of blackmail thrown in. Typically he opened his coat to show sought-after articles like nylon stockings for sale without ration coupons or watches of dubious origin.

Do we have Spivs running Whitehall and Brussels? You judge. One of the weakest parts of HMG’s position on Europe — if not the weakest — is Euratom. It retains a semblance of democracy which the EU has abandoned.

The much vaunted Article 50 deals only with exiting the Lisbon Treaty. It is a pretty poor treaty and many would say: “Good Riddance to it!” Legally it smells like rotten fish. The Lisbon Treaty is practically identical with the dead Constitutional Treaty that was rejected in their Referendums by the French and Dutch .
It would have been rejected by the British and a whole string of other democracies — if they had had the chance to vote. They didn’t. Instead the articles were forced undemocraticly through Parliaments against the wishes of their populations. Now that UK referendum that was refused so many times for Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitutional and the Lisbon treaties is coming back to haunt both HMG and Brussels.

The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community. It was agreed as a Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was supported by referendums and free votes in parliaments when all of the present Member States joined.
Lisbon only is rejected. On 23 June 2016 37 percent of the electorate voted to Leave the European Union. (63 percent refused to vote or voted Remain.) Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to leave immediately but it was as difficult to herd the Brexiteers in her government into a single policy direction on how to leave and what to negotiate. She wished to use royal prerogative powers, just like Henry VIII. "I decide, no debate or vote in Parliament!"
That failed when Gina Miller brought the matter to Court.

PM May has now been forced by the UK Supreme Court to introduce an Act of Parliament before the Government can issue the Article 50 letter that says the country would like to leave the EU. Presently, in the European Union (withdrawal) Bill before Parliament, the UK Government is trying some very dubious skulduggery. It is attempting to withdraw from both the European Union and Euratom.

The 23 June 2016 Referendum was on Remaining or Leaving the European Union.

The EU is a product of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU is quite separate from the Community.

As far as Brussels and lawyers at the European Court of Justice would look at it, there are two separate treaties with two separate clauses on exit.

The Lisbon Treaty has Article 50. Euratom has something quite different. It has a NON EXIT clause Article 208. Why? because it is about the democratic control of nuclear material and nuclear security. Its aim was to stop an atomic war in Europe. It says:

“The treaty is concluded for an unlimited period.”

The Government has tried to confuse this (but only in British eyes) in the UK’s EU (Amendment) Act of 2008. In it they say that when “they” say “EU” they mean “EU and Euratom” if there is a context that “permits and requires this”. Who judges the context– especially if none exists? Who judges the legality of a surreptitious sale of nylon stockings without a ration coupon? A Spiv or a Humpty Dumpty! The Act has a spiv-like features! Back in 2008, the Act was also the means to refuse the British people a referendum !

Here we can say there is no context given in publications or official Statement that allows HMG to say it is permitted or required to include Euratom with its No-Exit Article.

Are ministers living in Wonderland? This misdemeanor is more serious than Alice in Wonderland where words mean whatever you want them to!

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Through the Looking Glass, chapter 6.

This tactic of HMG is fraudulent. The Humpty-Dumpties might want to add exit NATO, the Council of Europe or the UN !!

It is like saying when I bought your second hand car for two hundred pounds, I own your house too because when I say car, I mean ‘car and house’ !!

Besides this the real owner — the depository of the treaties — has no document saying that the 27 other Member States agree with this fraudulent, spiv-like practice! Hence the European Court of Justice could not agree with this.

The fairest and simplest amendment to any EU (Withdrawal) Bill would be to omit all mention of Euratom. No one campaigned for exiting Euratom!

In the Brexit campaign I know of no Government Statement or any publication where HMG has specified that the UK is leaving the Euratom treaty. Do you? If so then HMG has NO MANDATE to leave Euratom or alter its status.

Further backgound is available in the free eBook on academia.edu. It is at

https://www.academia.edu/30605744

In other words the present negotiations will be useless until Europe’s core problem is tackled — distrust of Brussels and also HMG’s refusals to hold timely referendums. The UK should work for democratic reform in Brussels. This should start with the treaty requirements that all Councils should be open to the public AS THE TREATIES SAY. The European Community was initiated by Robert Schuman to bring honest Government to Europe. The Commission, Europe’s Honest Broker, should be composed of honest men and women who refuse to be members of partisan organizations or interests.