The CIA agents with a conscience

Added to that John,
we now have the problem of votes being rejected for various reasons, as happened in the general election and as Oxford Uni for Labour are doing now. When the time comes for a referendum, the voting system will be so skewed that it will be fixed in favour of the EU.
We need to look seriously at this.

We have no doubt that Britain’s membership of the EU was achieved by very dubious means, legally and morally. Ross McWhirter wrote an account of his attempts to avert the Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972. This has recently been republished under the title “Ross Was Right” by Covenant Publishing. Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter wrote a very full
account “Treason at Maastricht which is now available at very small cost on Kindle showing that the Maastricht Treaty was undoubtedly treasonous according to many Acts and precedents then in force. However, neither resulted in legal action. Atkinson and McWhirter laid their evidence before the magistrates. The authorities waited until Parliament passed the Maastricht Treaty Bill and then said “it would not be in the public interest” to take further action. As treason can only be prosecuted by the Crown Officers (who were also part of the government) that was the end of the matter. Others have tried to lay similar evidence on similar grounds but we are told that many of the Acts under which Atkinson and McWhirter laid evidence have since been repealed. The late Arthur Leolin Price CBE QC ( 1924 -2013) was a founder member of CIB and gave the following advice to our President, George West, in 2011.

“Before and after the Heath government adopted accession to the European Communities (primarily to what was then known as “the Common Market”) and during the debates about the Bill which became the 1972 Act, my many letters in the Times argued against it. I read the Treaty of Rome, I had studied the “jurisprudence” of the European Court of Justice . I had been a subscriber to the ECJ reports in French as, of course, they had not been available in English. On political and “ constitutional” grounds I was against our accession. Such “rule making” and government power as would be transferred to institutions of the Community would not be subject to control by our Government or Parliament or Electorate. If more and more powers were transferred our independence and sovereignty would be in peril But it was not my view then or now that the 1972 Act was invalid. I had provided Walker-Smith with constant arguments against the Bill
which became the 1972 Act. But the effect of the Act was that we unwisely
joined the “Common Market” which was of limited operation. I was active in the
pitifully under-financed “No” campaign in the 1975 referendum. But is was a long time before new transfers of powers to what became the EU began to happen. It started with the so-called “Single European Act” and continued with the Treaty of Maastricht and later the Treaty of Nice and that of Lisbon.

The cumulative effect of our 1972 Act and the amending Acts to give effect to the amending treaties persuaded me that challenge in our courts had become possible.After Maastricht leave to challenge its incorporation into our “law” was obtained by me on behalf of Rees-Mogg, but the challenge then failed and an intended appeal to the House of Lords was abandoned. The Treaty of Nice was challenged: if Maastricht was not a “treaty too far” then Nice surely was! Challenge to the Lisbon Treaty was planned elaborately, but delayed and then not pursued.

My opinion on which these challenges were based, was that the cumulative transfers of power made the results unlawful. Too much legislative and government power had purportedly been transferred to alien bodies and people who were not subject to our constitutional disciplines and controls, and not accountable to parliament and electorate. Under our constitutional arrangements, MPs are elected to exercise powers only until our next general election: members of our government ( chosen by reference to the party members established by our latest general election) are only temporarily in power – with the government facing dismissal at our next general election.

What Martin-Howe says is particularly important when he gets to suggesting that a treaty, like a contract, may be invalidated by fraud. There has been from 1970 onwards, a constant and very effective practice of keeping the “debate” away from the issue of Sovereignty; denying that sovereignty is an issue; and achieving “by stealth” the apparent ultimate – constitutionally unacceptable and legally invalid – result that our government an parliaments, only temporarily in power, have purportedly transferred power and government over us by concealing and denying what was proposed and done.

To campaign for Parliament to repeal the 1972 Act and its amending Acts is a good idea; but there is an alternative or supplement; namely to seek in judicial review appropriate declarations. The judicial review proceedings could, even if unsuccessful, provide publicity for parliamentary repeal of the statutes or at least for restrictions on the exercise of EU powers so that sovereignty of parliament and our electorate and our independence are all regained and preserved.