Brexit – A Constitutional Crisis

by Helen Davies

In order to halt these MPs and Lords from preventing Brexit happening, the People of this Country need to rise up and Declare that their Country was taken into the EU both illegally and unconstitutionally!

The List has drawn up a Declaration for every Citizen to sign. The List intends to take this up legally and fight to have Our Declaration inserted into Our Constitution.

You cannot demand that the European Communities Act 1972 be repealed whilst it has already been proposed by the Lords not to repeal it under a condition. MPs voted against this amendment; but you can declare that it is void.

However, the Commons accepted the Government’s amendment, in lieu, which would require the Government to lay a statement before Parliament, before October 2018, outlining the steps taken to negotiate an agreement for the UK to participate in a customs arrangement with the EU.

Yes, that’s right; they are proposing that our commitment to the Customs Union is a precondition of the repeal of the Act! It may be that this Government is proposing a ‘special arrangement’ with the EU, but I doubt the People see this anything other than ‘pulling the wool over our eyes’, but we will have to wait and see.

By repealing the European Communities Act 1972 not all EU law will be wiped off the statue books. For example, the European Arrest Warrant comes under the Extradition Act 2003.

Another amendment, and there were a few, is to remove the date 29th March, 2019 as the exit day from the EU Withdrawal Bill!

We are currently at, what they call a ‘ping pong’ stage. The EU Withdrawal Bill completed its first stage in the Commons and will now return again to the Lords who will consider it. Will this last for ever? Well, it could do for months. If both Houses do not agree, they send it back and forth.

However, if both Houses do not agree – the Bill is lost for ever!

Can the Lords overrule the Commons? Firstly we have to establish the function of the Lords. The Lords is the second chamber whose task is to check and challenge the work of the government.

If they disagreed fundamentally with a Bill, they could deliberately let it be lost by demanding an amendment be kept. This is called ‘double insistence’ and actually did happen with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill 1997-98. I am advised that the Government could use the Parliament Act 1911 (amended 1949) to pass the bill in the following session. However, in doing so, would delay the passage of legislation. (according to the Institute for Government)

Coming to the uncodified Constitution of the U.K.; The Salisbury Convention – here the Lords will not oppose a second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. (one of the principles being “permits the offering of reasoned amendments to a motion for second reading of a Government bill, provided such amendments are not wrecking amendments designed to destroy the bill.”). So all these Conservative MPs, such as Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke et al who are opposing the Government at every turn and supporting the Lords amendments, it would seem, surely that they are therefore in contradiction. Surely they stood by their manifesto at the last election and most did vote to enact Article 50?

The House of Lords are the heirs to the ancient Barons referred to in Constitutional documents. The role of the Barons in our constitution is to ensure, through due diligence, that any bills passed to them by the Commons, adhere to the Constitution, as Parliament may not make Constitutional amendments without ‘consent’. The European Communities Act 1972 was passed through Parliament without the consent of the Electorate. A year later, the Electorate was asked whether it would wish to remain, but packaged as a European Common Market; the Electorate were unaware that their Sovereignty had been signed over to a foreign entity. This continued with more Sovereignty being passed over to a foreign entity with the Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty etc. Today, EU law lies supreme over national UK law. Today, The House of Lords, too, are trying to thwart the process of democracy by going against the People and promoting their wishes be added to the EU Withdrawal Bill; and some may argue supporting and proposing “wrecking amendments.”

This is not to say the People need to have a vote on all internal aspects of Bills and legislation, but the magnitude and importance of your Sovereignty and Powers, being given away externally, is ultra vires and unconstitutional. However, the House of Lords’ ability to veto outright was ‘removed’ by the Parliament Act 1911, (apart from the ability to veto money bills), and therefore that makes the Parliament Act 1911 unconstitutional and therefore unlawful as it prevents the Lords from carrying out their constitutional role.   There is the Parliament Act 1949 which made amendments to the 1911 Act, in which it reduced the requisite number of sessions from three to two.

Parliament may not make Constitutional amendments without ‘consent’. The House of Lords are therefore unable to perform their role if they cannot veto bills put to them by the Commons. Parliament is only sovereign in so much as the Monarch has loaned them sovereignty, and that in itself, has been loaned by the People. However, you will find no one in Parliament would agree with this correct statement because by acknowledging this, it would affect Gina Miller’s previous win. Gina Miller’s argument that ‘triggering Article 50 would destroy rights established by UK Parliament’s decision to pass the European Communities Act (1972)’, but that Act was ‘passed’ unconstitutionally in the first place.

So for them to challenge that the Lords have the ability to veto, they would then be confirming that Parliament has no power to make constitutional amendments without ‘consent’, which in itself would mean voiding ECA (European Communities Act) 1972 on constitutional grounds. This would then prove that our membership has never been constitutional, lawful, and is invalid and remove us automatically from the EU, cancelling all legislation and immediately annul not only the European Communities Act, but all unlawful EU law and directives.

There has come a time for this Country to decide whether the House of Lords continues to serve its due purpose. It is now full of unelected peers, that more resembles an older House of Commons than that of ‘the Barons’. Their purpose to ensure, through due diligence, that laws passed to them adhere to the Constitution and represents the wishes of the people must surely be paramount in any future role. However, most of those elected are done so by MPs and Governments and the People have no real say. This can only be described as undemocratic. It is time for the People to decide its fate; whether it should be they who decides who sits in the House of Lords; a combination of those from all walks of life, religious, commerce, law, education etc., and be elected by the People in a democratic country. Perhaps those within those institutions could put names forward as candidates and it rests with the people to choose 2 of each category. This is just one basic example, but it must be allowed to be debated, for it can no longer go on as it currently stands. It would remain that a massive constitutional crisis could be looming, especially as this would additionally make all past payments and taxes to the EEC and EU money that the Governments, over the years, have unlawfully and unconstitutionally been given to the European Union.

It is common sense, that for a House of Lords to pass judgement or make amendments to any Bill, they must do so, not only with due diligence, but with the wishes and concerns of the people. But can this be achieved when they are unelected and purposely elected by only Governments and political parties?

So initially, the importance of our Declaration is paramount to get the wheels in motion. The People reside under the Constitution; surely it’s for the Sovereign People to have their say in their Constitution!

In the definition of democracy, “a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system,” is to be agreed; then the EU Referendum was a clear example of democracy in action. However, attempts by those elected to thwart the result of the People, can only be described as contradictory and defeating the intended goal, democracy, and more aptly a betrayal of the People.

No doubt the likes of Anna Soubry or Ken Clarke would shout ‘we have Parliamentary Sovereignty’. We are Sovereign. But are you? Why then did you give us a Referendum? Parliamentary Sovereignty is given (a political construct) to create or end laws internally. Sovereignty lies solely first with the people. Do the people lose their Sovereignty? At times of election, the electorate delegates to the Crown and Parliament sovereign powers to administer the affairs of the country internally, but is it not within the gift of the Crown and Parliament to transfer all or any of these powers, so delegated, to a foreign country or entity, and in doing so, externally, and without the consent of the Electorate. This is clearly forbidden by the laws of the Constitution. There are however limitations to Parliamentary Sovereignty; one of which is that no Parliament can bind its successors. The signing of the European Communities Act 1972 (before any referendum), The Maastricht Treaty, The Lisbon Treaty – did these not bind its successors and the state; otherwise define bind?

I use the word “delegate”, but perhaps that is too slight; it is a surrender—surrender of the country, sovereignty and powers over the people to an authority outside this country – that surely is treachery! Had the Parliament in the day of the start of WW2 thought in this manner, would they have saved a war by giving over all powers and sovereignty of this country to Hitler?

Even The Bill of Rights, part of the bedrock of our uncodified Constitution, contains the following swearing of oath “Supremacy, I AB, do swear that I do………………And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm, so help me God.”

As seen in the Factortame case; the claimants, Spanish Ship owners, made use of UK fish reserves to fish courtesy of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which allowed them to fish in the UK then sell the fish they had caught in Spain. The issue being was EU law supreme over national Westminster Law, bearing in mind the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Claimants won the case. The case confirmed the UK’s subordination to EU law and that EU law can require an injunction against the executive Crown.

So it begs the question, is it not the EU who presently hold Parliamentary Sovereignty 1 over the UK or has Parliamentary Sovereignty affectively dissolved and now rests solely with the people?

(1“Sovereignty” A Government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country or a foreign sovereign state. (The Arantzazu Mendi, (1939) A.C.256), Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary) )

This is a dangerous and frightening concept and why there is now a Declaration proposed by the People to sign, not only for them, but for generations to come. There have been other slight changes to our Constitution made by those elected by the People, but without our Consent, so why can the People not insert a Declaration? Some may say, but those in power are able to make these changes on our behalf, for example, Nick Clegg passed through very quickly, a change to the Constitution in that the Monarchy no longer had to pass first to a male child – some may say this brings us more into the modern world, and I have no problem with that, but my problem is that I worry if it so easy to pass this, seemingly quickly, then what else can be changed without the consent of the Electorate? After all, our Sovereignty and Powers have been passed to the EU!

In the United Kingdom, it is the Sovereign that holds executive authority from the people, even though the Prime Minister and Cabinet effectively implement executive powers. They exercise executive authority on the Sovereign’s behalf.

Under the Westminster System (a parliamentary system of government developed in the U.K.), the Monarch reserves the right to “Reserve Power.”

Such a concept was reinforced in The English Constitution (1876) by Walter Bagehot, who emphasised the “dignified” and “efficient” aspects of government. In this sense Bagehot was stating that the sovereign should be a focal point for the nation, while the P.M., and Cabinet actually undertook executive decisions. Since the British sovereign is a constitutional monarch, he or she abides by the advice of his or her ministers, except when executing reserve powers in times of crisis. Under this Reserve Power, the Monarch has the ability to dismiss a Prime Minister.

If this present Government do not stand strong with a strong leader to fulfil the wishes of the Electorate, then perhaps the People should declare that their Sovereign enact these Reserve Powers to appoint a more successful P.M., and one in line with the wishes of the People?

The concept of the UK Constitution was pointed out to Anna Soubry in an email reply to her, and she did not disagree; just a reply ‘noted’.

The Constitution of the UK, to put it in its simplest terms, comprises:

1. The Government (the Crown) which is responsible for the governing of the country.
2. The Houses of Parliament which passes the Laws and to some extent can call the Government to account.
3. The Judiciary which interprets the law.
4. The Electorate which elects the Members of the House of Commons and has ultimate Sovereignty.

Some politicians have said that we have to bring the country together and listen to the 48%, as the country is divided. With respect, the country is always divided every time a General Election is held, and the ‘48%’ were heard throughout the EU Referendum Debate, and now the country has spoken by a Majority – to LEAVE the EU in its entirety. At no time on the ballot paper, were the words written ‘to include a transitional period’ mentioned.

In my opinion, any withdrawal Agreement, which leaves the UK in the Single Market, Customs Union and the ECJ and EU treaties, after the set date, is contrary to and inconsistent with, the decision arrived at by the Referendum decision. In that event, the actions of the Government will be unconstitutional and undemocratic and likely to lead to considerable public unrest. Furthermore, previous actions by Ministers and MPs and previous PMs, whereby the sovereignty of the U.K. was transferred to a foreign entity without the consent of the electorate was ultra vires and unconstitutional. Unless this is corrected correctly, those individuals should be held to account, in a court of law, or by the process of impeachment instigated by Referendum of the electorate.

No one dislikes Europe; but they do not wish to be controlled, both politically and constitutionally by the political construct that is the EU.  There is no such thing as a Hard Brexit or a Soft Brexit, this is just a way of trying to mislead.  The result was to Leave; to Leave the EU in its entirety – you can’t be half pregnant!

Perhaps the Sovereign People should now take the reins, and demand that those privileged to have been elected follow through with their wishes and to maintain that this never happens again, sign the Declaration. It’s time the People had a Voice. With your support, The List intends to get you that Voice. Sign Here


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: