‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’
I'd have thought that for a Parliamentarian, that is pretty uncontentious stuff. Yet only forty MPs voted in favour and 380 voted against. Think about that for a minute. Forty MPs out of 650 sought to protect the supremacy of the UK Parliament. They were all Tories apart from 1 LibDem (Mike Hancock) and a few DUP MPs. I am most suprised that neither George Osborne, nor Vince Cable voted for this clause. Why? George Osborne wishes to impose higher taxes on Alcopos. Vince Cable wishes to reduce the VAT rate on fruit juices and smoothies (and he's not talking about his leader here...). Neither of them would actually be able to do that were they to become Chancellor of the Exchequer due to the terms of EU Directive 92/83. It comes to something when non-elected Commission bureaucrats can prevent a democratically elected government from making a marginal change in the tax rate on drinks. Hattip to Christopher Booker and EU Referendum.
38 comments:
Cameron/Clegg Clegg/Cameron which is which?
"But in his first speech as leader Nick Clegg went further by demanding a shake-up of the whole political system.
He called for a constitutional convention to redraw the rules by which Britain is governed.
Mr Cameron received a three-minute standing ovation for his speech at the party's spring conference in Liverpool.
He spoke for more than 50 minutes without notes, overcoming a few initial signs of nervousness to deliver an impassioned plea for political change. "
You are slow Ian,
We've had this up for a few days now.
Here's a nice video to raise your blood pressure:
http://www.ivc6.com/greenfieldtv/remotecontrol1.html
Seems pretty obvious that they do - they voted for Parlaiment to ratify the Lisbon Treaty rather than asking the populace at large so to do...
At Last! Someone has noticed. This was the real news about the Lisbon Treaty. I’m pleased Mike Hancock voted for it. If this had passed any concerns about the Treaty was being the Constitution in disguise would have been banished.
I don’t agree with Bill Cash’s views on Europe, but I’ve got to hand it to him this was the coup de grāce . Cash’s amendment would have made the Lisbon/Reform Treaty, exactly what it is supposed to be a treaty to reform earlier treaties to take account of enlargement. Of course the 1688 Bill of Rights maintains the supremacy of parliament, the parliaments of some Commonwealth countries and the Irish Dail (no relation to you Iain).
Because the provisions of the ECA make it clear that parliament has decided that treaty obligations may render some parts of UK law as unlawful. Bill cash's amendment would end that and so would be tantamount to withdrawing from the EU.
If parliament wishes to leave the EU then fair enough. But not because Bill Cash thinks he can pull a fast one.
NB: if you think domestic law should be paramount in all cases then I expect we won't be hearing you moan about other EU states breaking European law.
The question is not 'do they believe it is supreme?' I think that's irrelevant.
The question is 'IS Parliament supreme?'
...and the answer is clearly 'NO'
Suddenly the backsides of many of the abstaining Libdems became unstuck and they trooped through the Lobby with the government on this issue. It seemed to go unnoticed by many, but it certainly in my mind showed the sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty of their stance in abstaining the earlier votes.
A very good point, Iain. Is it also true that the chamber was half empty when this was debated?
Those MPs who failed to vote for the supremacy of our parliament are owe us all an explanation regarding why they let us down.
The democracy loving 88% who voted against the Lisbon Treaty and for a referendum during the local referendums didn't do so to be betrayed by our elected representatives.
And those of us who campaigned our hearts out against the treaty and for democracy, canvassing long hours on the freezing streets in Winter are surely also due an explanation.
Polititians of both parties from Heath onwards have lied through their teeth about the EU. It is utterly despicable. Labour was against it until they twigged it was more a socialist (ie top down)plot than a capitalist one. The fishing rights we gave away are a disgrace, the CAP a menace, the bureaucracy as corrupt as the UN. The export figures are false due to huge quantities shipped to Rotterdam and then onwards. The idea of an effective EU foreign policy/army etc being workable beyond parody. They need us more than we need them and we should be OUT, OUT OUT. Perhaps we could then actually use the money for our armed forces and diplomatic service around the world instead of closing prime embassies to keep Browns bent economic miracle afloat. When oh when are the Conservatives going to admit what a disaster this has been and how we were stitched up by De Gaulle. Thank god we are not in the single currency; Spain is the latest country to be hard pressed due to German interest rates and all these daft landfill bans are due to continental problems not ours ... the list goes on an on. If you have any influence with Mr Cameron for christ's sake (and I with Dawkins) alert him to the wide feeling in the country that we are in a fools paradise in the EU!
"Love Europe, Hate the EU"
The 1972 European Communities Act means that for certain subjects European Statute takes precedence (hence parliament is not supreme for that purpose). If we are going to repeal this act we should do it explicitly. Incidentally the Lisbon Treaty allows leaving the EU. I am still likely to vote against 3rd Reading on the basis of the absence of the referendum, but I do support our membership of the EU and the 1972 Act (passed when I was 12).
We have been sold down the river by a parliament of quislings, with a few honourable exceptions.
The fact that the leadership of the tory party did not support Cash's ammendment proves that they have NO intention of holding a referendum on this treaty if they win the next election!
The fact that you, Iain, have not even put that question to them, shows that the Tory Party is, as Peter Hitchens says,indulging in a rotten fraud on the public.
We need a complete rethink and perhaps a dose of Cromwellian Government is in order to kick out all the present bunch of 'honourable' members and replace them in time with people who truly value democracy and who will represent their constituents honestly.
whoops, wrong again Ian.
380 MPs upheld the supremacy of Parliament and 40 chose to enact treason.
11 years out of office and this basic tenet alludes you.
Gary
Supremacy of which parliament ?
UK or EP?
Where is Alcopos... and why shouldn't their citizens pay more tax? I think we should be told.
'in his first speech as leader Nick Clegg went further by demanding a shake-up of the whole political system'
Well that much was obvious. In effect most Lib Dems want to shut Westminster down, so that in effect it has less powers than the Scottish Parliament does now.
I think we all sympathise with that kind of position now and again.
However they want to admit the defeat of parliament and admit that it has been replaced by the EU. Which is in my own view both illiberal and undemocratic.
Nonetheless it is a coherent policy position. To fully comply with this position however the Lib Dems would have to be honest and send their best candidates to be MEPs rather than MPs. This they don't do, therefore they are dishonest.
Personally I don't want to shut down Westminster, a reboot however would be good. I do not admit defeat.
Until such time as the undemocratic euro-tyranny has created the Federal Superstate Bill Cash's clause is entirely sensible; Parliament should remain supreme.
If the Lib Dems want to change politics they could start by being a bit more honest. Maybe change the moniker to: The EU Federalist Party of the UK.
Surely you've heard that the Tory whips sent a text at something like 7.15 to say "no more votes - go home", Cash's amendment went to vote at 7.24 apparently.
This whole thing is a debacle and does no credit to ANY of our MPs.
The sovereignty of Parliament is a common law principle. Not one of the Bill of Rights 1688 or any other written law. In fact it is the only part of the common law that Parliament cannot change. A stream cannot rise above its source. Consequently no Act of Parliament can extinguish the unlimited power of Parliament to pass, repeal or amend any law it pleases. That of course includes the ECA 1972 as amended. If Parliament repealed that law there would be political consequences but as a matter of law the Crown in its courts would have to apply and follow it. For the courts to do anything else would be tantamount to a legal revolution. A short lived one no doubt because they would be removed from office by Parliament.
Any measure in UK law that leads to the incomplete implementation of EU law merely creates damages liability post Factortame. The ECJ would declare Cash's notwithstanding clause as contrary to EU law and if they had hindered the application of EU law might award damages. Such things are tinkering. With the EU you either in or out.
Directive 92/83/EEC is a Council Directive, not one passed by the EC Commission (although they appear to have proposed it) and taken after opinions of the European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee. The Council is composed of ministers of the Member States, and so in that sense is indirectly elected. The European Parliament is directly elected.
It certainly does "comes to something when non-elected Commission bureaucrats can prevent a democratically elected government from making a marginal change in the tax rate on drinks", it just hasn't happened.
"Polititians of both parties from Heath onwards have lied through their teeth about the EU".
Pity British voters can't seem to figure it out. BTW, great video at
THE EU
All in all a pointless motion. If parliament is supreme then it doesn't require a motion in parliament to give that effect. If parliament is not supreme, then such an amendment may have no effect.
Bob Piper:
Alcopos is a small province on the western coast of Brazil. Its where the long-lost F'kaawi tribe live.
They spend their days wandering around in the rain forest, lost, chanting "Where the F'kaawi?"
The supremacy of the British Parliament disappeared with the introduction of the Single European Act. Once Maastricht, with its focus on Economic and Monetary Union was introduced, then we agreed to run our economy for the benefit of the wider European community, and our sovereignty was lost for good, even if we didn't actually adopt the Euro.
I'm not trying to score a political point here. It is merely that it once the sea has washed in past old King Canute, it is a little late in the day to start talking about the 'turning back of the tide'.
The supremacy of statute disappeared with the European Communities Act of 1972. The Single European Act 1987 made Europe a federal system whereby qualified majority voting allowed decisions against the UK's government's position to be imposed on the UK.
BTW it was Margaret Thatcher who was PM when a Federal Europe was created.
The supremacy of the British Parliament disappeared with the introduction of the Single European Act
Oh no it didn't. Read Lord Justice Laws in Thoburn. The doctrine of implied repeal might have been modified to a small extent by the political reality of our EU membership but Parliamentary sovereign lives on.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html
Parliament is not supreme so long as the European Communities Act 1972 is on the statute book. Repeal that then we recover our rights. So long as we are in the EU were are not free.
Iain, you know why most of the Tory Party voted against this motion. 1. because association with it means endorsing the lunatic fringe such as Bill Cash who are obsessed and 2. because voting for the motion was endorsement for the real position, not very hidden, of "I want Britain out of the European Union."
Hurrah! 620 of our MPs don't want Britain out of the EU, realising how bad it would be for the UK in economic and foreign policy terms.
And if that doesn't smoke your posters into putting on the record what they thought this motion was for, nothing will. I expect plenty of references to the "EUSSR", the "Soviet EUnion", "Stalin McBroon" and to Hans-Gert Poettering being Hitler and I'll be disappointed if I don't get 'em.
Does anyone have a list of "eurosceptic" Conswervative MPs who voted against this? This kind of thing is only to be expected from Liebour and Illiberal Dubmass eurofederalist traitors but the Conswervatives are supposed to be eurosceptic.
Actually Iain it's quite simple. Repeated cases at the European Court of Justice have shown that EC Law is supreme over national law. Parliament cannot pass a law placing itself over EC law without falling foul of the ECJ. It's all there in the Treaty of Rome, written long before Britain joined the EEC (as was) and you'd have thought the Eurosceptics would have got round to reading it by now.
The EU has never been a trading club, it has a deeper political and social mission (again there in the ToR) which can only be enacted by having a common set of laws that everyone has to obey.
By all means press to leave the EU and find yourself in the position of Norway (without the oil or well-educated multilingual workforce), being forced to fall into line with EC legislation without having any say-so in how it's created.
Parliamentarians are smart enough to see Cash for what he is and that his feeble little bit of troublemaking wouldn't be worth the vellum it would be written on.
You do realise that a fourth defeat being maasterminded by dave and Ed Miliband will cause Dave to have a 'neil kinnock moment', don't you?
The EU is your equivalent to our nuclear weapons 'policy'.
We live with them and you must learn to live with the EU.
One day, nuclear weapons will be removed from my country, won't they?
Hope you see the irony.
Gary
Iain
I am frankly amazed that someone whose life it is to follow politics, such as yourself, can understand so little about the legal reality of the EU that you don't realise this amendment would be incompatible with continued membership - as a number of people have pointed out. It sort of makes me begin to understand why you have never got anywhere in seeking to become an MP (sorry, cruel jibe but your post does make you look a total ignoramus, really).
That's not to say either way whether it was worth voting for the amendment - I am sure not all of the 40 who voted for it actually wanted to withdraw like Cash - many were no doubt making a point/gesture. Which is fine for some backbenchers but can hardly be the policy of a front bench seeking power, unless that front bench wants to make it a major platform to withdraw or seek renegotiation of the whole legal basis of the EU (some renegotiation might be practicable, but certainly not this).
Iain,
Given the supremacy of EU law, is it fair to say that any announcement by a UK politician that is unaccompanied by a bullet point list of how the policy relates to the pertinent aspects of EU law, is necessarily a publicity stunt, not a policy statement ?
“ELF”
You really are very naive sometimes, Iain.
Membership of the EU means the acceptance of EU law and the latter, as a matter of law, overides domestic law. The only way for that to change is to leave the EU or 'reform' the EU so much that it is, effectively, no longer the EU. No such reform would ever be permitted by euro-politicians.
In reality the Cash amendment is a device for obtaining the excellent outcome of leaving the EU. I have no problem with Cash playing the system - good for him. Why do you not understand? This is all so obvious.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0084:EN:HTML
Where does the directive say anything about friut juice. It sets a minimum excise duty but no maximum from my reading.
Iain, I think that by looking at some of the postings (nailing you)in here, you should come to terms with Tory EU policy of success and ditch this silly brand that Bill Cash seems to champion.
You appear to think there is a quality within, of the anti argument, and almost none (we're all traitors selling the UK out) within the pro EU argument (whose arguing?).
Time to chnge tack Iain.
Playn it for all its worth inthe future to the selection crowds and my guess you'll come a cropper.
For me, the absolute quality is within making this system work and not showing straight bananas up as, well, being straight.
Toryism founded British involvement in Europe and Thatcher will go down (soon, I hope) as a great European Leader and not necessarily as a mine closer.
Some of the comments in here, attacking you, seem to have no political pedigree attached to them. Are they socialists driving home pain, or are they Tories stating the obvious?
No chance whatsoever, is it politically sound to promote an anti cause anymore in Europe.
I'm not going to say I told you so but I will say that I hate nuclear weapons and will go to my grave doing so.Big deal.
Gary
Parliament remains sovereign. Statute, however, is not. A Federal Europe was created by the SEA (because of qualified majority voting).
The debates are about which decisions are taken in a federal manner.
I take the view that we need a decentralised Europe rather than one driven by a centripetal bureaucracy.
Of course if we had a written constitution we would understand more about the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament has never really been supreme and a brief study of constitutional history and law will demonstrate that.
What's getting my goat is that last week we had the treachery in the Commons, following months of open lies and years of undermining our constitutional framework in the name of modernity... and today the government are telling us via Goldsmith and the news channels that children ought to be (and I paraphrase) taught to respect Britain and asked to pledge allegiance to the Queen. Again we're told that there should be a 'National Day' to celebrate 'Britishness'. All seems like a complete piss-take to me.
Rohan's right: Parliament can't take away its own sovereignty, and it hasn't done so. And sovereignty is perfectly reconcilable with the EU doctrine of supremacy. I've blogged about it here.
The truth is that Bill Cash can only achieve his policy aims by repealing the 1972 Act.
Post a Comment