Memorandum by Mrs Anne Palmer JP
This is my personal individual contribution
to the Call for Evidence by Sub Committee E (Law and Institutions)
inquiry: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Impact of the
reform Treaty. I do not belong to any Political Party.
1. The application of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights to FSJ measures. The main concern
is, will the Government's Redlines and opt-in/out hold? My opinion
is, they will not. I am mindful of the Letter from Mr Jim Murphy
MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the
Chairman of the Committee, 31 July 2007 and note in particular
"The UK Protocol confirms that nothing in the Charter extends
the ability of any court to strike down UK law. In particular,
the social and economic provisions of Title IV of the Charter
give people no greater rights than are given in UK law".
However, I will give you a "for instance" for I am also
mindful of the sentence in Art 4, of the Reform Treaty, paragraph
2, "that National Security will remain with National Governments".
"In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility
of each Member State". That seems clear enough. However,
through the EU's Protection of Critical Infrastructure, the EU,
using Article 308 may, (and very likely) for the very first time
in the history of this Country, allow others-the EU- to involve
itself in the very sensitive issue of National Security, again,
allegedly because this is yet another matter that transcends National
Borders. National Security is to come under the EU's umbrella
through a legally binding Directive. Why then is that statement
in Art 4 included in the Reform Treaty?
2. If our National Security is transferred
to the EU, it is one of the greatest betrayals of all, because,
in war time, any information given to the enemy (and who knows
who the next enemy will be?) it is a matter of treason, and for
which others in the last war were hung by the neck until dead.
In the detailed information the EU may want are, what weapons
we hold, where they are, whom we share some with etc. How can
we, as a separate independent Country, that we are continually
told we are, give our defence and attack secrets away? How will
the giving of that information away to others affect our relationship
with those we already stand shoulder to shoulder with? It is not
just my country at risk if these security secrets are given away
to foreigners; MP's are putting other nations at risk as well
as future generations. Their own children and grandchildren. I
truly hope my "for instance" is noted.
3. At the moment the Charter is as a solemn
Declaration and annexed to the Treaty of Nice and as such has
no legal force, although it was, I believe, always intended that
it should become legally binding, It has of course, been "referred
to" when making decisions, and indeed some people have felt
that it should become an entrenched Bill of Rights. Some Countries
and possibly some Unions here in the UK want the entire Social
Rights—the right to strike etc, applicable. Should there
be a dispute, I cannot see the EU Court of Justice not over-ruling
those Redlines—they will leak like a sieve.
4. How long will the Redlines hold, when
in other parts of the Reform Treaty (if Ratified), when particular
attention is drawn to, Art 4 (3) "The Member States shall
facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from
any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's
objectives", or Article 8c "National Parliaments shall
contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union"
even without the word "SHALL" the meaning is very clear,
and on both counts the ECJ may well enforce those paragraphs,
sweeping away any Redlines before it. The people though, have
never been told what the Unions TRUE "objective" is.
They should be told.
5. The waters here seem to get a little
muddy should the EU also, as it so wished, enter into the field
of The European Convention of Human Rights? At the moment the
ECJ (and ECHR) can and does overrule our Courts and also our Parliament
(in other words, because of the casual transferring of sovereignty
by "today's" British Governments, our Parliament is
no longer supreme or sovereign and neither will the new "Supreme
Court" be supreme) now, should the EU as one entity sign
up to the ECHR, will any decision that that Court makes, override
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Court of
Justice itself?
6. I looked at whether the EU and the separate
Nation States came under the United Nation's authority when they
joined Kyoto, but the EU and Member States joined simultaneously
on 31 May 2002, and Kyoto came into force 16.2.2005. So, if the
UK falls behind in their targets, is it answerable to the UN and
not to the EU? Therefore, questionably, the UK should not be admonished,
fined or set "targets" by the EU at all? The UK is,
I suggest, directly responsible to the UN? I do not believe the
EU was in a position to "speak" for all its Member States
at that point in time. It is, I would suggest, a debateable argument
and well worth a legal challenge by the UK especially if the £180
million a year fine is implemented by the EU if the UK falls behind
with their self imposed targets. And what, if time proves Kyoto
is all just a tax collection service? Will the UK get a refund?
An "Ice Age" was predicted in 1950/60s, that didn't
happen.
7. However, if the EU becomes party as a
whole to the ECHR, by joining at a later date than the others,
will it too, as well as all nation states become under the auspices
of the ECHR Court? To me, there might well be a conflict of Treaties.
If we look at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the
ECHR was signed in Rome on the 4 November 1950 and the ECC Treaty
in 1957, the latter Treaty could take precedence and as such all
Member States may no longer be bound by the ECHR? But surely that
cannot be true? The EU is joining the ECHR, meaning it is to recognise
the ECHR as it's better? When the UK joined the EU Treaties, even
though at a later date, it cannot take precedence as under International
law, it is agreeing to the contents of those Treaties it has signed
up to. The same must then, apply to the EU as a whole when it
joined Kyoto and the same when the EU and Member States joined
it, the United Nations remains the force. (In Charge)
8. One of the reasons given why America
did not join Kyoto, was because it did not want to lose sovereignty
to the UN.
9. As regards the ECJ and the ECHR Court,
I leave the sorting out to others, I have just posed a small
part of the bigger problem, although I do believe it was a
grave mistake for the Labour Government to incorporate the Human
Rights Act into our legal system rather than just refer to it,
especially as our Government was asking for a derogation after
only a few months after incorporating it into our system, however
I do understand that ALL EU Member States had to sign up, as part
of their involvement in the EU, and was "a condition"
that they signed up to the ECHR as would the EU as a whole when
the time came.
10. As decisions made by the Highest Court
in our land can be over-turned by the ECHR, I now wonder whether
the time may come, whether decisions of the ECJ can be challenged
directly by the ECHR. We live in interesting times for the United
Kingdom of Great Britain once upon a time thought that our Parliament
was "Supreme", will the doctrine of the Supremacy of
EC Law fall the same way, I wonder? More importantly, what will
happen if it does?
11. This I think answers the question of
"The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
in relation to the FSJ Area".
12. I understand that these red lines were
also in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe",
and the people were promised a referendum on that Treaty and that
promise was also established in the Government's Manifesto pledge.
The people deserve, and should have that promised referendum.
It might be difficult to ask the people of this Country whether
they would like to place the governing of this Country permanently
to the European Union, yet that is what is proposed. The EU could
make any laws it wanted to and no one could prevent them from
doing so, not even our own Prime Minister.
13. I do not see how any Government whose
first loyalty and solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown and
this Country could possibly ask the people to destroy their own
Constitution nor can I understand how any Government could accept
and ratify such a constitutional Treaty which, when fully implemented
with the use of a self amending Article included in it that would
eventually destroy everything the people fought for (Freedom and
Liberty) in 1939.
14. The Legal Base for criminal law
measures and the continuing impact of Case C-176/03 in the context
of the reform Treaty Amendments? Commission of the Communities
v The Council of the European Union. I have questioned above
the very base of this legislation, and although Case C-176/03
was part of a Consultation previously, I simply highlight a couple
of points from the case. Point 6, "Each Member State shall
take the necessary measures to establish as a criminal offences
under its domestic law, when committed with negligence, or at
least serious negligence, the offences enumerated in Article 2".
Here is a body telling this great nation what to do. Actually
many new criminal offences that did not exist before have sprung
from this particular ruling.
15. Proof enough already that the EU already
has power to make criminal law and even criminal law that the
UK may not even want, yet can do nothing other than apply it.
It is offensive to me that this once great country has to be told
what to do, and it also actually has to do it. If the EU can do
this now, what can it do, and without doubt will do when it gets
more powers from the EU's Reform Treaty? In Case C-176/03, the
Court struck down a Framework Decision on criminal sanctions applying
to environmental protection which had been adopted by the Council
on a Third Pillar legal base. In the Reform Treaty the
Third Pillar will no longer exist, and if ratified, we
will have accepted two new Treaties, which we would have to implement.
16. To comply with the instructions re length
of my contribution, for the remaining points suggested in your
Paper, I feel sure the Committee already know what the move to
the vast increase in Qualified Majority voting would do to this
Country. There is absolutely no doubt at all about the consequences
of such an agreement re Qualified Majority voting.
17. I will therefore concentrate on this
Government's proposal of giving to the European Union the use
of Her Majesty's "Royal Prerogative". Government Ministers
use the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown at the moment.
Although, Government Ministers did not have to ask Parliament
for permission to go to war with Iraq the matter was indeed put
before Parliament. What was made very clear to the people of this
Country, was, in spite of Parliament being given "a say",
without the correct information laid before them, errors and decisions
can still be made and our forces were sent to war. The deaths
of a great deal of innocent women and children and our forces
that happened may have been prevented had Parliament been presented
with the exact and correct facts.
18. A Government Minister at the moment
uses the Royal Prerogative for Treaty and War Making Powers on
behalf of the Crown and Prime Minister Brown has suggested that
these war-making powers should be given to our Parliamentarians
to make it more "democratic". It is not in the "Government's
gift" to transfer the Royal Prerogative to any other body
of people, especially to foreigners, yet I note that Article 32
of the Reform Treaty states that, "The Union shall have
legal Personality". It is the Royal Prerogative that
this Government is giving to the European Union. To give this
extraordinary Constitutional change away to the EU, the people
should have a say along with the Crown.
19. Article 33, "The treaties may
be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure.
They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision
procedures, with clear instructions beneath as to how this
can be done. No suggestion in the Reform Treaty re "war making
powers" given to EU? Yet look to the proposals for an EU
Army and the new proposals for a European Council on Foreign Relations
(EFCR) that is demanding that the EU develop a more coherent and
vigorous foreign policy. For the EU to "speak with one voice",
"should be backed up with all of Europe's economic, political,
cultural and, as a last resort, military power".
20. Debates are already on going on whether
Parliament should be always allowed a say. The title "Royal
Prerogative" may also become simply a "title" of
the past, and, as with all matters that Parliament still might
have a say on, these powers will eventually become a Competence
of the European Union, if so, a British Parliament will never
have a say again. No powers have ever been returned that have
so casually been given to the EU.
21. Under the Royal Prerogative are "Treaty
Making Powers" and as we already know the Union has, as a
whole, and on behalf of its Member States, entered into five Treaties.
I do question the legal base for these. Parliamentary sovereignty
on the EU treaties is only maintained, in their conflict with
existing great statutes still in force, by the constitutional
doctrine of implied repeal or disqualification. This principle
of alleged "loaned" sovereignty has never been
widely debated and now that up to 80% of our laws come from Brussels,
Parliament is in an increasingly vulnerable position of over extending
their deficit of trust with the Electorate. If in the future
the people, who themselves are sovereign, decide
that their "loaned" parliamentary sovereignty with the
political "bank" of the EU is too great, posing a threat
to our present constitutional settlement, a crisis of great magnitude
would likely ensue—it being the declared position that the
trust of the people and therefore their sovereignty, is returned
to them intact every five years.
22. Whatever is in the Treaties the EU
may sign and ratify on our behalf, laws, regulations, alterations,
transfer of our territorial seas and oceans as proposed in the
EU's "Motorway in the Sea" etc, even world maps changed
to suit. Our Parliament, our Government (if they still exist then)
will have no opportunity to alter anything, in exactly the same
way that once the Government has accepted the Reform Treaty, British
Committee's can only scrutinise, they cannot alter even now.
23. At the moment, the Reform Treaty
can be rejected. If, having voted for Members of Parliament
to represent us the people, to speak on their behalf, knowing
full well that the vast majority of people do not want any further
integration into the European Union, to ratify the Reform Treaty
would be a betrayal. The putting forward of this Consultation
Paper, for the few people that may read of it, shows that our
MP's have grave doubts as to the wisdom of any Government handing
over these great powers that are held in the Reform Treaty which
is indeed of great constitutional importance and dangerous changes
to this our once sovereign independent Country.
5 November 2007
|
