Article 50 – debunking some myths

True, but there is a more important reason for rejecting the Article
50 route. It would mean a mandatory
two-year negotiation, controlled by the EU and with the focus on protecting EU
interests, not British ones. Under Article 50, the federalist
majority in the European Parliament has a veto on any deal, and the UK would be
presented with a “take it or leave it” decision at the end of the two
years. This long period of uncertainty would do major damage to trade and
investment in both the UK and the EU. Far better to take charge of the exit
process ourselves and revise our own European Communities Act, to remove the
provisions which make EU law overrule British law.

Very True Ken, The stock market hates uncertainty. Two years of a jittery stock market would make most British people want to stay in. There is a far easier exit route.
We were taken in to the then common market unlawfully as the now published letter of the attorney general showed. All EU treaties are unlawful and against our constitution. We cannot be held to them unless we meekly consent. The personalities behind CIB are too proud to face up to this and change their minds on the correct exit route. They should follow the rule of law. Any giving away of my sovereignty is unlawful. Read the constitution and then understand why the governments wants to give us a bill of rights.

I tend to agree with you about the Legality of our entry to Europe John, and believe all Privy Councillors since and icluding Heath are guilty of treason. Having read works by Atkinson and McWhirter, plus a few others, I believe the legality of The Single European Act, and submitting our Courts to a Foreign Power, has not been tested in Court and should be.
However I disagree about the comment on CIB. The fact is that no one is going to take the matter to Court unless all else fails, so we are stuck with the current game plan. If we do not address that, then come the Referendum, we will lose and the Spin Doctors will tell us that it is the “Settled Will of the British People – as Blair did when he fixed the Scottish Devolution Vote. Atkinson and McWhirter failed in their attempt to have charges of High Treason brought and we would be at the mercy of the Supreme Court as to whether they had had their fill of the ECJ and ECHR. I don’t think we can risk the legal route only. Law Lords can be quite obtuse and their thinking difficult to understand.

We obviously have a difference of opinion here, and as it is an opinion who knows who is right. I follow many cases in the courts and rather than say they are obtuse as you describe them I would say and have evidence that they are corrupt.
However there have been two cases at the supreme court this year which rejected arguments based on statute law because the common law stated quite clearly etc.
The supreme court has to follow the precedent of common law and give their reasons.
Judges in these top positions seem to value their reputations and how they go down in history. I am confident that if the matter came before them they would have to agree with the attorney general who advised Heath in a letter now in the public domain that taking us into the then common market would be unlawful.
How to get it into the court. It needs eminent people like Richard North, Edward Spelton, Norman Tebbitt. Nigel Farage and the UKIP MP to force the issue into public discussion.
I asked the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell to raise a point of order in the house asking the speaker to rule on the legality of EU treaties as they are contrary to our common law. He like Farage will not discuss the subject. Neither will those I’ve named above.
I now know that Heath was being blackmailed by MI5 regarding his paedophilia so that he would sign the treaties. Surely all those named above and many more are not being blackmailed. So why will they not even discuss in public the illegality of all the treaties. Something really sinister is going on here.

I won’t argue with you about the Judiciary being corrupt, corruptable and/or being leant on by Politicians. Atkinson and McWhirter tried to get a judgement of High Treason for those who took us into The EU – the Privy Councillors being especially guilty – but they failed. They had no doubt that the Judges were pressurised and leave us in no doubt what we are up against.
I still retain doubts about many who profess to want a Britain free from the shackles of Europe. The Daily Mail carries a story today about a survey on Europe taken throughout Europe. The figures for those who want closer integration is 25% or less. Many are equally angry at the behaviour of Brussels and want power returned to National Governments. The Press normally hide this news; they don’t want us to know that dissatisfaction is Europe wide, because most of them take money from Brussels to promote the EU – including the BBC. That is what we are up against.

‘these Article 50 negotiations are outside its [the Commission’s] remit’

Not entirely, I think. Article 50(2):

… ‘That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.’

TFEU, Article 218(3):

‘The Commission, … shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision
authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged,
nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union’s negotiating team.’

So, depending on the extent and character of their recommendations, the Commission could have quite an influence, I would have thought, on the way in which the negotiations are conducted, their scope, and so on.

Andrew