Graham Brady Says Miliband, Cash & Redwood Wrong
In an interview with GMTV's David Mills* the Tory Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady contradicts claims from Bill Cash and John Redwood that the Conservatives voted to assert the primacy of British over EU law in a vote on the Regulatory Reform Bill. Brady countered that
...the primacy of EU law only happens because of the act of Parliament, there’s a very long standing principle that British law and British parliament are sovereign, we allow EU law to take precedence and all that amendment would have done really is crystallise and clarify the current legal situation whereby if Parliament chose to legislate in a way that was contrary to EU law then that should take precedence, so it was a clarification of the law, it was not a statement of intent or policy of unilateral action contrary to EU law.
GMTV: That’s your interpretation, but Bill Cash and John Redwood and others who take a very close look at European policy in your party, they think it’s very significant.
Well as I said what we weren’t doing was setting about a policy of unilateral action and contravention of EU law, what we were doing and which isn’t new, was accepting the current legal position that Britain’s parliament was sovereign and that’s something we hold very dear as Conservatives and it’s important to us, and it’s important that the British electorate should know that their parliament is sovereign and ultimately can prevail. That doesn’t mean that we’re setting about contradicting EU law, it simply makes it very clear what the situation would be if that were to happen.
In the Guardian David Miliband hyped up a claim that this increasingly controversial vote signalled that the Tories were willing to withdraw from the EU. Does anyone have a definitive answer? C'mon Euro-obssessives, what does it really mean? Is parliament still sovereign or not? If it already is, what was the point of the Tory amendment?
*To be broadcast tomorrow.
21 comments:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
However, as the European Union have not had their accounts audited in 11 years they have failed to perform the treaty
The UK can therefore withdraw citing article 61 (Vienna)
.
According to the much critisised constitution, britain could withdraw at any time of it's choosing. So why the fuss?
You Tories are playing games. everyone knows it. Dave is the boy wonder brought in with a nice face.
Truth is, the anti psycho's are running the show in the background.
A loser, but only on election days.
Anti euro, anti Europe, anti commission, anti EU parliament,ant social chapter, anti everything.
All so very much out of step and out of date for 21stC Great Britain.
Word for word, your words are those of Sir Oswald Moseley.The latter day BNP/UKIP.
Come the day and time. I will personally scalp Cameron and your last vestige of hope.
I scalped Hague for all to see.
'"We only have 24hrs to save the £££££"'(Willie)
Piece of piss.
Gary
Parliament is sovreign, yes. But exercising that sovreignty in contravention to a provision of the EU treaties essentially boils down to leaving the EU or buckling under to the ECJ's rulings. If you a club member you can break the rules, but the price is that you ultimately get thrown out.
Brady is dissembling.
I made the point quite clearly in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (No XXXVII). It is also enshrined in the Constitution of the (now) United Kingdom. If 'the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England', then neither can any foreign power or representative of that foreign power assert authority. I previously argued that England is an Empire, not merely a kingdom, and therefore the Monarch (and now Parliament) is subject to no-one and nothing that it may not reject or repeal. Constitutionally, therefore, Parliament is free to act as it sees fit for the Realm, not as any foreign head of state may dictate.
Gary Elsby said:
You Tories are playing games. everyone knows it..Anti euro, anti Europe, anti commission..All so very much out of step and out of date for 21stC Great Britain.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The vast majority of us in UK are anti the EU gravy train, its corrupt, unaccountable Commission and its undemocratic control of our lives.
Its YOU and Nulab who are playing games and living in the past - one of many reasons most of the public are aliented from the lot of you.
Graham Brady was once described by a parliamentary sketchwriter as looking like "Prince Andrew without the brains".
I'm sure he's a nice chap - but he's a good reason why local candidates can be a bad thing. I heard that he only got selected for Altrincham and Sale because his mother ran the constituency association!
Gary Elsby, there are so many mistakes in your post I wouldn't even start on the political stuff. You should however learn how to use an apostrophe. And after all that money Tony invested in education...
Hang on a minute, I'll just go and look out of the window and check if you're right........
Nope.....the EU is still there and Labour still runs the Country.
Stop smelling the coffee, it aint coke (know what I mean dave?).
Sitting with the Nazi's is the wrong move and choice. For you certainly.....for me...I intend to slaughter the Tory party on this one.
Sieg heil and all that. Another skin for the chameleon.Are you ready?
gary
Gary Elsby with another boring off the point post: could be summarised as follows: "I am brilliant, why doesn't the world realise how brilliant I am?". Pass the pillow.
Realise two things dullard.
1. No one gives a Tommy Tit about the European Parliament.
2. People LIKE the chameleon.
Now grow you fool.
Oh yes Cranmer, The 39 Articles, which were drawn up by the church in convocation in 1563. An Act of Parliament ordered subscription to them by the clergy in 1571. They were confirmed in and by, the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and the Act of Settlement 1701. They were consolidated, as fundamental and unchangeable by the Treaty of the Union 1707
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) 2d July 2002 "As to the Act of Settlement, in whole or in part, I repeat that I believe that there is no clear and pressing need for repeal or reform"
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) 15th July 2002. Yes the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 where incorporated within the union of Scotland Act 1706
Article XXXVII The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows:
"The King's
Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."
.
Brady says " SHOULD take precedence"
Nicer IF he had been able to say DOES or WILL!
Nice to see a debate on jurisprudence. I am an "American Realist" myself. Law is law if there's a civil authority to enforce it. The EU has no army or police and only the British ever obey the ECJ (the French just laugh and do what they like). Ergo, the ToR is a treaty like any other and ends (as far as Britain is concerned) whenever Parliament says so (which has plently of civil authority -albeit largely incompetent and currently a bit trigger-happy - to enforce its laws).
Until parliament DOES say so, however, the ToR functions like an enabling act authorising the Council of Ministers to make British law as delegated legislation without further reference to Parliament. We have "outsourced" or more precisely "offshored" a good part of our legislative function, if you like.
The Cash amendment made a good political point, but would not have been legally significant IMHO.
Far more worrying is the state of our own constitution. The separation of powers has broken down, the executive is out of control. Parliament is theoretically all-powerful but has effectlvely loaned its powers (or at least those not delegated to the Council of Ministers) to the PM who, as you may have noticed, is currently something of a deranged t**t (and looks set to be replaced by a deranged, but even more Scottish, t**t.
1, Graham Brady , total burk never had a real job
2, Gary Elsby your a cunt why does not wanting to be dictated to by an unlected body foreigners amke me a nazi?
3, Gary Elsby you are still a cunt , this time with knobs on.
It seems that Brady, along with the rest of the front bench and most backbenchers, did not and does not understand Cash's ammendment.
Brady is correct that parliament can pass a law that is contrary to EU law but that was not what the ammendment stated. The ammendment would have allowed deregulatory orders to be invoked by ministers to overide EU law. The ammendment would have been an example of Parliament using it's sovereignity not simply asserting it's right to do so.
Bloo-Lab are quick at learning Nu-Lab newspeak skills. Still more of the same "In Europe and run by Europe" that we know and love from these career cons...........
Just so you ca be clear The German Constitution forbids the delegation of national sovereignty to any other body but Bundestag and Bundesrat. The German Supreme Court refuses to accept supremacy of EU Law over German Rulings of the Supreme Court.
However it seems they all put their telescope to the blind eye when considering matters
Richard Allen is almost right. What Bill Cash's amendment did was to mean that Secondary Legislation under the LRRA took precedence under the implied repeal provisions notwithstanding the 1972 act.
This happened for all such orders. Much like Clause 174 of the Finance (No 2) which I pointed out to Bill himself last week.
It will be interesting to see if it passes into law. I did refer to it in Standing Committee A (which last time I looked had not been updated - last session last Tues).
Cranmer has a good point; a statute of Henry VIII of 1536 started with the preamble "..this realm of England is an Empire.." and the monarch had absolute authority within it, including primacy over the Papacy or the Holy Roman Empire of the time. But I have a feeling that the European Communities Act 1972 (especially Section 2.2.) rather overturned this as regards the EU (then the EEC). Confusion may have subsequently arisen over the respective roles of the EEC Treaty of Rome and the Cranmer-era Bishop of Rome (aka His Holiness the Pope), but I leave it to Anonemeuse to comment further here.
"Word for word, your words are those of Sir Oswald Moseley."
That would be the Mosley who wanted a United Europe...
The Nazis wanted a united Europe so why is it that Europhiles like to claim sceptics are Nazis. Oh yeah cause they think we are ignorant morons.
lambethlad said... but I leave it to Anonemeuse to comment further here.
'jus cogens' dear chap, 'jus cogens'
.
Post a Comment