Britain's Parliament targeted by EU

The amazing attempt by the EU to put Britain's Parliament in a subservient role to the institutions of the EU not applicable to the assemblies of other EU nations has thankfully been revealed by the European Scrutiny Committee of the Commons, but they have yet to obtain a government commitment to remove the offending imperative "shall". Read the so far uncorrected report of Jim Murphy's evidence from here. It is claimed a 'drafting error' was to blame, an unlikely assertion in the devious and carefully crafted world of lies and deceit that is the European Union. If the French and Dutch versions, who have both previously rejected this treaty by national referendum do not contain the wording that will bind their less rebellious assemblies, then why should Britain's Parliament be so bound. One answer only is possible, Britain's Parliament is a different beast to those on the Continent, and as such would remain a continuing threat to the tyranny being formed in the Politburo of the EU, the all powerful new European Council .... hence the wording in the English version that "national parliaments shall actively contribute to the good functioning of the Union", a clear conspiracy against Britain, perpetrated by nations supposedly our partners promoting joint interests but now showing their true colours in their intent to destroy OUR democratic bedrock. I quote:

Q92 Chairman: Fine. Can we move on to one last item? I am concerned at the comments made about the informal meeting in Portugal and the general agreement, you said, that the Mandate was not up for amendment. When you last met us we did raise with you the question under Article 8cEU of the role of national parliaments, which says: "national parliaments shall actively contribute to the good functioning of the Union" and then it goes on to say a number of things that we shall do and, of course, it was then, and still is, of deep concern to this Committee that it would appear that the EU is instructing this Parliament how to behave, along with all the other parliaments. You did say that it would be looked at by the Foreign Office in its negotiations. Can you inform us if this will be amended rather than just left in and in the future to be up to hypothetical judgments in the courts? We do think it is a fundamental change in the way a Treaty of the European Union addresses the role of parliaments and should not be allowed to continue.

Mr Murphy: Chairman, on the specific point about that word "shall", we have made some progress and have looked into it in some detail. It is our understanding, as I think I said in July and I certainly said at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that it is clumsy drafting rather than policy intent. That observation in itself is not enough, it is important also to reflect my understanding that the French text does not contain the word "shall".

Q93 Chairman: It does not have that in it.

Mr Murphy: It is my understanding that even though part of this was motivated by the determination of our colleagues in the Dutch Government neither is it in the Dutch text, so that reinforces this point. We are determined to make sure that the concerns that you have raised, which I think I have said before are entirely reasonable and we share them, are met and overcome around this issue.

Q94 Chairman: Can I just press you on that. That is all very well but if it is not textually altered then it remains in there and I do not care who is ascribing to a conspiracy theory or that the drafters are also in cahoots with the Commission, it does require to be amended not just to be agreed in general discussion with other ministers that it was a very bad piece of drafting.

Mr Murphy: Chairman, we will make it clear in text and the text will reflect what you are asking today and what I have said previously on record that there is no intention or desire to mandate sovereign parliaments in their actions. That will be reflected in the text.

Q95 Mr Cash: Chairman, you raised an extremely point, if I may say so, with respect to the distinction that is made having regard to the exclusive and so-called binding nature of this Mandate where the legal experts get together, and I have got the note here about the legal experts working group, and come up with the conclusion that somehow or other you can adjust the wording, as for example with regard to the question of the obligation on national parliaments, and that is all right but at the same time, however, the Portuguese Presidency and the Foreign Minister before they took over, when Germany was still in control, issued a statement saying, "There will be no departure from this". I spoke to the Foreign Secretary personally about this and I said, "Is this legally binding on the British Government as far as you are concerned?" and he said to me, "It is binding as far as we wish it to be binding". What I am interested to know is just exactly, as a matter of principle, how this is operating. We have a Treaty, which is a prerogative act, and we have the Prime Minister saying that in line with the sort of considerations of Lord Lester's Bill we are now actually going to take away the prerogative in relation to the declaration of war and the making of Treaties and have it all approved by Parliament, yet at the same time we have situations where in this particular Treaty everything is defined by a legally binding Mandate but it appears that the legal experts can get together and can then decide as to whether or not they are going to re-interpret provisions or not. We had Mr Thomas telling us that actually the European Court of Justice under the European Communities Act, as I put it to him, will have the last say, but he then said, "Ah, but you see there may be questions of interpretation which will let us out of it". I have to say to you, Mr Murphy, that what really worries me about all of this is the extent to which the whole of this racket, which is what it basically is, is being forced through by prerogative act by a former Prime Minister followed by a new Prime Minister against the background of an impending General Election and exceptions are given to the legal experts to make adjustments, for example, on national obligations and the wording but not with respect to the question of whether or not particular provisions will apply to the United Kingdom. In other words, this is developing into an operation which lacks transparency, is not candid, is bypassing the British Parliament to a great extent - we went into that at the beginning - and at the same time bypassing the British people because they are not going to be allowed a referendum. Would you not agree that is a pretty tragic state of affairs and one that should be strongly resisted by the British people.