Letter from Anne Palmer to President Barroso

<><> The following letter dated 15th May 2006 to President Barroso of the EU was copied to Britain's Prime Minister and the leaders of the oposition parties.<>

<> For the attention of EU Commission President Barroso.<>

Dear Sir,

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Charter’s last resting place was outside the Treaty of Nice annexed to it. It was “solemnly proclaimed” on 7^th December 2000 in Nice. It had a whole section to itself in the proposed Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (Meaning the European Union) The Charter was rejected along with the whole EU Constitution by two major Countries in their referendum. To incorporate it now undermines the people’s democratic vote in those two Countries and the very rights they are alleged to have had in that vote. The Commission and their Government’s actions now, most certainly will not “bring the Union closer to the people”.

I understand that the Commission would like this Charter, when incorporating EU legislation into our system to be given the same status as the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe there may be paragraphs that conflict with the ECHR? (Article 52 para 3 and Article 53)?

At this moment in time our Government is having problems with the European Convention on Human Rights and there is an urgent ‘need’ to change the law so that we, as an alleged sovereign Country can wield authority on who we want to stay in our Country or send back those from whence they came, especially those accused of or have served time for crimes or are a risk to British subjects of the Crown.

The Lord Chancellor has today (15.5.2006) admitted on television that if we pull out of the Convention on Human Rights we can no longer remain in the European Union because it was a condition of requirement that all Member States are party to it. We cannot change the ECHR although we can have a derogation from parts of it, having had to do just that about six months after incorporating into our legislation. However, it does rather seem at times that under the ECHR, the offender comes before the rights of the law-abiding citizen. It is however, Parliament than makes the laws and Judges apply them.

In the House of Commons Standing Committee for 18^th Jan 2006, the Minister of State for Constitutional affairs (Ms Harriet Harman) stated that, “As a document that sets out existing rights, it is entirely logical that the Commission should use the Charter as its main point of reference in, for example, this communication. However, I reiterate that that will not imply any formal or legal status for the charter. It is a political declaration, but the communication from the commission to itself takes up the principle in the charter”. Yet in COM (2005) 172 referred to in the Committee, it cites the EU Constitution (obviously not applicable at this time) and states quite clearly that, “Although it is not, therefore, legally binding, it contains the fundamental principles which have been held to be binding in case-law as general principles of Community law”. According to our Government in accepting the Charter the “Charter remains a non-legally binding showcase of existing rights.” If the document does not have legal standing in Britain and great pains have been taken by the Minister to emphasize that point-why is the Commission seeking a publicity drive to stress its importance which obviously costs a great deal of money? Why indeed would it publicise what has been likened to the Beano Comic in this Country if it remains in exactly the same positioning as it did at Nice, why bother trying to incorporate it now?

It seems sensible to me then, if the Charter is given this high recognition, it is time our Rights held in Magna Carta and our own Bill of Rights be given exactly the same status, and any legislation passed must be declared compatible with our own Constitution. I am of course quite incorrect in writing that, for do not our Judges look to the EU Treaties before our constitution? I shall correct it by writing that our own Constitution must come first at all times. Why? Because all our Members of Parliament and Government have sworn a solemn Oath of allegiance to the Crown and their Country as have all the people that have actually been born here and are British nationals by birth. The very essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign. I am very much aware of how Members of the European Commission value the oath they swear on taking up their position as Commissioners, they should understand that the people of this country can never bear any allegiance to any Constitution other than our own.

If the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is brought forward without inclusion in a Treaty and is put forward by our Parliamentarians and allowed this position and the legal base given for incorporation as such, then there is obviously no requirement for it to be included in any treaty at all. It should be removed therefore from its place in the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe

In your speech of 31^st March 2006, you sir, quoted Hallstein, “Firstly, the Community is a creation of law. It is this, at the end of the day, which has allowed the successful and peaceful unification of our continent, when all previous attempts to unite Europe by force have failed.” I find this quotation particularly disturbing because it is saying that it is quite all right to use force in taking over another Country, and if that fails, try another method. Hallstein appears to be saying, it does not matter which method is used as long as we take over the governing of another Nation.

“Secondly, the Community is a source of law. This is the spark of fire which brings life and dynamism to what would otherwise be just another association of states. The Commission, with its largely exclusive right of initiative, has a central role to play here. It is the motor of Europe’s law making engine”. Two points here. One, it may be the source of law, but it is a law which the Commission through its actions of which I am writing about, has I suggest, ignored the law itself. If the end game is not “just another association of states”, what is the end game that is wanted? Be open and frank for it really IS about time the people knew.

Finally, the Community is a legal system, a coherent order based on treaties and legislation. Unlike international organisations, it is neither a talking shop nor a technical operation set up simply to ensure that single market rules are correctly applied, for example. Like all true legal systems, the community guarantees the legitimacy of action by its institutions, and offers legal protection to those affected by those actions.” It has often been said that the Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties. If the quotes above are what you sir, believe in and the final quote re Guardianship, then I would ask why are so many new Agencies being set up, and why are so many articles being removed from the EU Constitutional Treaty and incorporated without a Treaty? I question “the legitimacy” of those actions by the Commission and leaders of the Nation States, and I ask, where is the legal protection for the people of those Nation States that will indeed be affected greatly by the actions of the Commission? Why is there no respect for the people if the Charter is for the rights of the people? What is happening by incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights in this fashion, is sneaky, underhand and despicable.

Whether there is or is not a true legal base to incorporate the Charter is not quite the full point I am making, for if you genuinely want the Union to last, for it to be secure and for the people not to fight against it, it not only has to be done legally but also in the ‘spirit’ of what RIGHTS should stand for, it has to be seen to be right and the rule of law respected completely. What you are doing brings about the exact opposite of what you desire.

Finally, it has been suggested that Article 308 of the Treaty of Rome be put forward as the legal base for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency. This Agency is a new body and has no legal, Legal base. Article 308 was devised, with the idea of having some flexibility to deal with economic issues, not to deal with fundamental rights, I also think it is beyond the EU’s mandate to create such a general human rights monitoring body. We would have an outside-unelected body monitoring sensitive national issues. We have our own people, namely the politically correct society.

The British people have allegedly been given more “Rights” than they have ever had before in the history of this Country yet the people feel more oppressed, in fear of speaking at times, feel they are being “watched” and monitored wherever they go, they certainly do not want any more so called RIGHTS.

You see, Commission President Barroso, and I write this with the greatest respect, before our entry into the Community, we had true liberty and freedom even though we had just come out of a war fighting for it and for our precious “liberty”. We fought because we did not want to be ruled by anyone else other than our own Politicians whether they be ‘good’ or bad’.

We British had the freedom to do as we wished unless there was a law that forbade it, now, under the European Union; we may only DO something if the law says that we may. Union law goes into great detail of just how we may do something, pages and pages of it. There is a great deal of difference between the two laws and freedoms. Yet you know sir, in recent years, even after the war, we have never tried to force continental Europe to adopt our laws. If those on the continent of Europe had chosen our way, all 450 million people would have realised what they have missed out on all these years and also the exact reason why we fight so hard to preserve it.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

Copy to the Prime Minister of the UK., and leaders of the Opposition