Bill Mitchell-en Britainiar legislazioak EB legeria baliogabetu behar du,…

… horixe da independentziak esan nahi duena.

British legislation must be able to override EU law – that is what independence means


(i) Sarrera gisa

Piety has no bounds it seems. The Sunday Times ran an Op Ed at the weekend (September 12, 2020) – John Major and Tony Blair: Johnson must drop shameful no-deal Brexit bill or be forced to by MPs (paywall) – which told us how angry former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Major are with Boris Johnson about the Government’s intention to introduce the Internal Market Bill to ensure the so-called Withdrawal Agreement is compatible with national law. They started by appealing to the international treaty status of the Withdrawal Agreement, which outlined Britain’s terms of exit from the EU. The Op Ed called the decision by government as “shocking”. The Remainers are jumping on the ‘breach of international law’ bandwagon like there is no tomorrow. Of course, they never highlight the fact that they want to be part of an arrangement, which is created by international law and which regularly violates that law to serve its own political and elite interests. And those breaches, which include gross human rights abuses and deliberately undermining the prosperity of its own citizens through mass unemployment and more, have had severe consequences for humanity. The fact that the British government is now declaring national law will no longer be subjugated and subservient to international agreements is not in the same ball park of international violations.

(ii) Blair/Major

The Blair/Major Op Ed stated:

How can it be compatible with the codes of conduct that bind ministers, law officers and civil servants deliberately to break treaty obligations? As we negotiate new trade treaties, how do we salvage credibility as “global Britain” if we so blatantly disregard our commitments the moment we sign them? …

if the government itself will not respect the rule of law, then the High Court of Parliament should compel it to do so,

Both Blair and Major were clearly pro-Europe.

When Major was Prime Minister and introduced the Maastricht Treaty into British law, he was met with a major internal Tory Party rebellion (the so-called Maastricht Rebels).

He was dumped by the electorate in the 1997 general election after a period where he oversaw a massive recession while pushing ahead with his destructive privatisation program (British rail, coal etc). His period in office was marked by a series of high profile financial and sex scandals (which penetrated into his cabinet).

Importantly, he was PM during Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), which led to Britain finally realising it could not participate in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, despite his zeal for fixing the British pound within the ERM.

In his 10-year period as British Prime Minister, Tony Blair hardly respected international law.

He deployed British troops more than “any other prime minister in British History” (Source).

He put British troops at the convenience of the US in illegal invasions of Afghanistan, and, later Iraq. He lied to the British people about the claim that Saddam Hossain had weapons of mass destruction, which he intended to use against the US, despite no evidence being provided to justify that claim.

The link between Saddam Hossain and Al-Qaeda was never substantiated.

The Iraqi invasion essentially created ISIS and has made the world a much more dangerous place.

The Independent article (December 15, 2006)- Diplomat’s suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq wardisclosed that the nature of Blair’s lies about the war in Iraq.

Britain’s key negotiator to the UN, who had been kept silent “because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act”, subsequently revealed that:

at no time did … Her Majesty’s Government … assess that Iraq’s WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.

He admitted that British diplomats had “warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos … ”

He told a British government enquiry (chaired by Lord Butler) that:

There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US

A formal Dutch government enquiry (chaired by Dutch Supreme Court judge Willibrord Davids) later found that the 2003 invasion was not justified in international law.

This was endorsed in statements by the then UN Secretary-General who said in 2004 that (Source):

I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it … was illegal

Even the British – Chilcot Enquiry – which largely avoided considering the legality issue, concluded that the invasion had:

undermined the authority of the United Nations.

Further, it was fairly clear that Blair mislead the British Parliament on the invasion. Even his Deputy PM, John Prescott admitted the invasion was illegal (Source).

The point is that it is a bit much for Tony Blair to come out now and claim that ‘international law’ should take precedence in determining British interests.

Further, the Remainers are once again becoming apoplectic about the ‘international law’ issue, as a last-gasp attempt to salvage their neoliberal dream of being part of the European Union, if not as an official member, as a nation tightly bound by the single market rules and tight constraints on democratic choice and sovereignty.

Yet, they are desperate to be part of a organisation – the EU – that regularly violates international agreementsand has a shocking record of human rights abuses in terms of its border policies.

An Oxfam Report from April 5, 2017A dangerous ‘game’: the pushback of migrants, including refugees, at Europe’s borders – noted that:

In 2015 and 2016, more than a million people arrived in Europe after crossing the sea from Turkey to Greece and continuing their journey along the so-called Western Balkan route. In response, European Union Member States and other European countries hastily erected fences on their borders …

Rather than being places of safety … EU member states – have used brutal tactics, such as attack dogs and forcing people to strip naked in freezing temperatures.

The EU approach to the migration disaster – the “pushbacks” – violated Article 4 of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

A recent Oxfam report (July 2, 2020) concluded that (Source):

Greece’s new law is a blatant attack on Europe’s humanitarian commitment to protect people fleeing conflict and persecution … The European Union is complicit in this abuse, because for years it has been using Greece as a test ground for new migration policies.

On June 18, 2019, the Council of Europe concluded that (Source) the European Union was “breaking international law with its treatment of migrants and refugees”.

I can cite many examples where the EU undermines its own international obligations.

(iii) Eurogunea eta arauen husturak

The curious part is that the EU is founded on the principle that international treaties supercede national law.

Think about the Eurozone, which is a creation of international law.

The rules are regularly broken and the enforcement mechanisms are not applied consistently.

Germany, for example, consistently breaks the rules.

I considered that in this blog post – Germany’s serial breaches of Eurozone rules (May 11, 2015).

Thinks back to 2003, where France and Germany were the first nations to violate the Stability and Growth Pact and the EU changed the rules to suit.

Germans violated the SGP for several years from 2001 to 2005.

See this blog post – The hypocrisy of the Euro cabal is staggering (November 14, 2011).

But when Greece violates the international laws, all hell breaks loose and a nation is destroyed by pernicious policy interventions from Brussels (EU), Washington (IMF) and Frankfurt (ECB).

And what about the ECB, legally prevented from funding fiscal deficits among the Member States, buying government debt as if there was no tomorrow, and clearly funding fiscal deficits?

Smoke and mirrors.

All the time, international law being breached.

(iv) EB-ren aldekoak (‘Remainers’), Blair, …

And the Remainers, the Woke, Blair, etc are all quiet as mouses about all of this.

They only get their voices back when the British government actually starts to assert its regained independence from the EU cabal and proposes to use its legislative independence to determine what is in the national interest rather than what serves the interests of the European elites.

An article in Spiked (September 11, 2020)‘The EU can’t handle British independence’ – gets to the point clearly:

Therefore, there is this group of people, particularly those who used to be known as Remainers, who, while they see international treaties as the highest form of law, in fact, support an organisation – the EU – that is prepared to depart from international law when it suits its interests.

It goes on to make the next obvious point in all of this:

Most people would not buy the idea that a government should put a deal it has done with foreign powers before the interests of its own people. The idea of international treaties being sacred is a piety and a lot of the faux outrage after the government’s announcement is just more of the kind of pearl-clutching we have been seeing over the past few years.

The British Brexit negotiator, David Frost summarised it clearly:

That’s what being an independent country is about, that’s what the British people voted for and that’s what will happen at the end of the year,

The conclusion the Spiked article (which is an interview with Brussels journalist for The Times, Bruno Waterfield) channelled this sentiment in a different way:

the EU just can’t handle the fact that Britain is now an independent and sovereign country that isn’t part of its order.

(v) Gales eta Eskozia

I also think all the arguments about the Internal Market Bill constraining Wales and Scotland to follow British law are weak.

Are they a part of Britain or not?

If they want to be free of such a legislative fiat then they can restore their sovereignty in the same way Britain left the EU.

The whole point of the Bill is to ensure the integrity of the ‘country’ is preserved. That country is Britain.

(vi) Britainiar afera

Of interest to me, is the fact that the ‘British question’ is once again bugging Europe.

Charles de Gaulle vetoed British accession throughout the 1960s because he didn’t want a big nation like Britain inside the tent, given that his ambitions were for France to becomes the ‘Kings’ of Europe and exploit the shame that Germany was facing after its conduct during the War.

He knew that without Britain’s efforts during the War, France would not be in any shape at all. Which gave Britain the status of giants in the region.

And now, as Britain leaves the EU and reasserts its independence and desire to drive policy in different directions, Europe is again exhibiting signs of paranoia.

The Spike interview considers that:

Having a powerful country that has announced it wants to make a radical departure does rattle the EU. It’s worried about having to compete with Britain, which would be much more nimble-footed because it would be able to make decisions quickly without notifying Brussels. Again, it’s often dressed in a load of fretting that Britain would ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of tearing up labour standards or environmental standards, but it really is motivated by the fact that the EU doesn’t like the idea of having to engage in competition with a country right on its doorstep.

And in closing, I remind people that most nations signed up to theThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights – on December 10, 1948.

Article 23(1) says that:

Everyone has the right to work

So which governments do not violate their international agreements in this respect?


(1) I will pass no judgement on the specifics of the ‘Internal Market Bill’ until I have had more time to evaluate it.

(2) But the principle that a nation has legislative primacy is a basic tenet of any democracy.

(3) The European Union nations, especially the Eurozone 19 subset, have subjugated national interests to international agreements, which are not consistently applied and generally serve the interests of the elites at the expense of the workers.

(4) The distributional consequences of the inconsistent way Brussels applies the international law, which gives it an existence are staggering.

(5) And the basic human rights violations on the EU borders outstrip anything that Britain is planning to do with the Internal Market Bill.

Iruzkinak (1)

  • joseba

    Derek Henry

    Monday, September 14

    Excellent Bill,

    What Brexit was all about.

    The middle ground when I was growing was a completely different animal than what it is today. A liberal back then was a completely different person to a liberal today. A liberal today just wants the middle ground to float around the middle of the right wing spectrum. Compared to a liberal back then who expected the middle ground to actually be in the middle between left and right. Which is why the Tories can keep out manoeuvring Labour by moving slightly to the left, knowing full well they are still on the right wing spectrum.

    To keep calling those of us who voted to leave from The hard left is a lie. An insult to the generations before us who sacrificed and fought for a more equal distribution of profits. We just want The middle ground back to where it used to be, between The left and right. Not some fictional version that this generation calls home.

    The red wall part 6:

    How many times does the liberals have to keep losing before they get the message. How many times do we have to keep voting on the same issue before the liberals stop blaming Putin. I for one will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories until the liberals get the message loud and clear. The liberals that have infested the So called left leaning parties in the UK. The greens, Labour and the SNP should be forced out. There is a party for them it is called the Lib Dems. They should go and join it and allow the left leaning parties to move the middle ground back to its rightful home after we have left the EU.

    Jeremy Corbyn’s policies were called extreme by the liberals. Policies from the hard left. There was nothing extreme about them. If Corbyn had won and implemented those policies we would still be living on the right wing spectrum. He would have to have went a lot further and introduced a job guarentee before the middle ground was close to being back in its rightful place.

    It’s clear, very clear that the liberals sabotaged Corbyn. It’s clear they never intended to have a LEXIT vision and that all they ever wanted to do was stop Brexit. Impose their worldview on the rest of us. The SNP have become yet another version of a liberal party. A version of Blair’s own Labour party that won the SNP so many votes as Scottish voters turned their back on it. The SNP now mirror the liberal left and are using the ignorance of their voters on issues around the EU and the monetary system to further their agenda. The oxymoron of being at the heart of the EU and calling it independence.

    Joanna Cherry is Kier Starmer and Andrew Wilson is Tony Blair. The liberals who have infested the SNP expect her to be a future leader. Rather than win elections on policy they just moved liberals into seats that used to be won by the Lib Dems. They gave the voters another liberal to choose from and we all know what happens to the middle ground using that strategy. The Greens follow the exact same strategy so it is rinse and repeat. A liberal party with the smallest hint of green.

    The only way the liberal left are going to get the message. Is if true left wing voters who remember the real middle ground and where it belongs stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Stand shoulder to shoulder until this poison is removed from the left wing parties. After what The liberals done to Corbyn. I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories and will not move until The liberals are back in the Liberal Democratic party where they belong.

    Unless the Labour party can produce their own version of Farage. Split the party to keep them honest and take The union money with them. It will be a long time before they earn people’s votes again and an even longer time to move The middle ground from the middle of the right wing spectrum. Which would get a lot more votes than people think. How The SNP was formed before selling out and being overrun and hijacked by The liberals.

    The patient has to be cured before they can stand on their own two feet again. The patient has a better chance of survival and a much healthier outlook outside of the EU. The patient if it wants to stay off life support, has to rid itself of the neoliberal globalist poison that is currently running through its veins. Before there is any hope of a red wall ever appearing on the UK landscape ever again.

    The SNP are running towards political Armageddon. Once Scottish voters realise the reality and what it means to live a few years under EU policies. Whose voters will end up in the arms of the Tories. The only party who warned them of the consequences.

    A true left wing party would have sat back and allowed the Tories to drag the UK out of the EU. While the Tories were consuming all their energy on that. A true left wing party would have been creating a LEXIT vision. A vision ready to be put in front of the voters after we had left the EU. What we have instead is a neoliberal lawyer who will take his policies straight out of the chapters of George Monbiot book “captive state”. A rehash of new Labour policies that were rejected unanimously by the UK general public the red wall part 6.

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude