Copyright © 2015 - 17 euexit.com. All rights reserved.

23rd July, 2016

Locking The Doors to Freedom

Gordon Brown famously stated that "If we needed a referendum (on the Lisbon Treaty (2007) we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." Gordon Brown The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007 and Mandelson, in a similar vein stated "There is no constitutional change that would justify holding a referendum‟. - Peter Mandelson, Trade Commissioner, 2007. 


Yet Brown and Mandelson knew or should have known that the Lisbon Treaty (2007) contained within its texts (~95%) of the Articles, Declarations and Protocols i.e. the"Terms and Conditions" of the Constitution for Europe Treaty (2004), which had been signed by Blair and Straw, a treaty that had been Rejected by the French and Dutch populations in Referenda in 2005; mostly on the grounds of Constitutional changes resulting in the loss of sovereignty - it is unlikely that lawyers like Blair and Straw were not aware of these facts.


What Brown et al., also failed to disclose was that the Lisbon Treaty (2007) gave the EU a separate and superior legal status to its Member States in International Law; which allows it to sign Internationally binding agreements on behalf of its Member States without their involvement (i.e. in secret - TTIP anyone?); and which can be forced upon the hapless Member States through EU Regulations*. Brown et al., also failed to point out that the Lisbon Treaty (2007) was self-amending i.e. an "Enabling Act" disguised as a Reform Treaty, which gives the EU ultimate power over the populations of Europe; without requiring an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) nor Referenda by the populations of the individual or collective Nation States  (Article 48)


Revising the Lisbon Treaty (2007)

In order to increase the pace of closer integration within the EU and bring about the single government, the Lisbon Treaty (2007) contains clauses which allow changes to take place more rapidly. Three of these clauses are described briefly with reference to the "Reader Friendly Consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) - revised in 2008" - which is available online as a PDF file at: http://www.eudemocrats.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Reader_friendly_til_nettet.pdf  


For example, on the page 4 of the consolidated text referenced above there is a  "Key to Symbols" within the text and at the bottom of that page is the following passage:-


"Passerelle Article 48 TEU" 
"If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, a unanimous European Council will be able to change all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. It may alter unanimity to voting by qualified majority in Title V of the TEU and in the entire TFEU. It may also replace a special legislative procedure by the ordinary legislative procedure in the TFEU."

The first part of the Consolidated Treaty is the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) and the second part of the treaty is The Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which begins on Page 49 and Title V of the TEU is on Page 72 

The above "Passerelle Clause" is one of three types of clause that allows changes to the treaty to facilitate more rapid progress in certain areas - the others are "Brake" and "Accelerator" Clauses which affect areas of Criminal Justice, particularly Articles 82, 83, 86 and 87 (TFEU) relating to EU Corpus Juris; which we do not want in Britain (see Corpus Juris)


Some other areas of the consolidated texts which may be of interest are:-


                    - EU Armed Forces - Article 42 (3) (TEU) is referenced on Page 40 (one of many references)

                    - Withdrawal of Member State - Article 50 (TEU) is on Page 46 

​                    - Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (EU Police State) Articles 82, 86, 86, 87 (TEU) are on Pages  78 to 84

                    - Primacy of EU Laws - Declaration 17 on Page 331


Euexit have also mapped some of the most onerous "Terms and Conditions" from the Constitution for Europe Treaty (2004) to their equivalent locations within the Lisbon Treaty (2007) (EU Constitution)


Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)

Of particular interest in the consolidated texts isArticle 16 (TEU) on Page 23 related to Qualified Majority Voting (QMV); introduced in 2009 and from the 1st of November, 2014 (Article 16(4) TEU) included a transition period from that time until the 31st of March 2017) which was thought to affect "Withdrawal of a Member State" under new QMV rules which would come into effect after that date (see Article 238 (3) (a) and (b) TFEU) on Page 152.


It was widely believed that unless Theresa May invokes Article 50 (TEU) on or before the 31st March, 2017 Britain could lose its ability to leave the EU without obtaining a QMV in the European Council in order to invoke Article 50 (TEU) and repeal the European Communities Act (1972) - were that to be the case then clearly that must not be allowed to happen; since from the 1st of April, 2017 EU integration may be able to proceed at a faster pace under the new QMV rules.  


However, according to the House of Commons Library blog (8th September, 2014) "QMV only applies to the final negotiated terms of exit from the EU and not the UK's ability to withdraw from the EU" which is only governed by the terms and conditions of Article 50 (TEU) and UK withdrawal cannot be prevented by other Member States. In any event, the invocation of Article 50 (TEU) by the 1st of January, 2017 would give Britain the optimum negotiating period between the start of 2017 and the 1st January, 2019; leaving time for preparations for the next general election in 2020.


If Britain is unable to find a mutually acceptable set of trading arrangements after two years we would revert to WTO rules on trade. If the UK runs into an impasse during the two year negotiating period under  Article 50 (TEU) it can resort to the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (1969)  Article 68. In the meantime we must make the most of opportunities in the wider world as well as engaging with Europe - without having to continue as part of the Marxist ideology enshrined in the political EU; which only leads to a military Dictatorship in Europe.


*Which is precisely why foreign governments, international investors and bankers, big business and multinational corporations all want Britain to stay in the EU and showed their solidarity with the EU - they were happy to cite such false benefits as Security, Peace and Prosperity  as reasons why Britain should not leave the EU - totally ignoring the problems within the EU itself; in Italy, Greece, southern Europe, uncontrolled mass immigration and general instability. The simple truth is that they have only one concern - they didn't want to have to negotiate with individual Member States when it is so much easier to obtain their objectives if the Member States are under total control of an overarching governing body - the EU. 


It is also worth noting that they were careful not to point out that the reality is that the EU is not as attractive without the UK included in the "package."


Home