Squadron Leader L Fellows RAF (retired)

Abingdon
Oxon


Dr Evan Harris MP  (Copy to The Silent Majority)
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA 27 November 2000

Dear Dr Harris

I have written to you twice in the last month expressing my deep concern
that, at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference in Nice next month,
long-standing constitutional rights and freedoms of the British people will
be placed in jeopardy by further surrenders of the British Government's
vetoes on European Union (EU) legislation.  If you have read my
correspondence, you will recall that I was particularly concerned about the
consequences of the surrender of the veto on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
which could lead to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the United Kingdom and
ultimately undermine the protection offered to British citizens by the Writ
of Habeas Corpus and the right of Trial by Jury.  I put three very specific
points to you about the consequences of the surrender of the JHA veto and
asked you, as my MP, to confirm or deny whether the points I raised posed a
constitutional threat to this country, in your view.  However, you have not
replied.

The points I made are not trivial or fatuous ones.  They concern threats to
the continuing freedom under Common Law of the people of our nation if the
present (or any other) Government continues to pursue a path of ever closer
political union with the EU.  In the name of the freedoms for which  the
people of this land have fought and died, firstly to achieve, and then to
preserve for this present and future generations, I ask that you do not
neglect the obligation you bear as an MP to scrutinise the Government's
surrender of British political sovereignty, whether intentional or
unintentional, in the light of their constitutional consequences.

The matter of the continuing surrender of political sovereignty by Britain
to EU agencies,  with the signing of each new EU treaty, and without any
mandate from the British electorate,  is now becoming one of the utmost
seriousness, threatening the very survival of our nation as a self-governing
state.

I write to you here to ask if, from your point of view as a parliamentarian,
you can answer the constitutional questions, thrown up by present events,
that I and many other concerned British citizens are asking.

The Labour Government is quite wrong to associate support for the continuing
surrender of the British veto in EU policy matters with patriotism.  It may
be argued that Britain would exert more influence as a member of an
ever-deepening EU than she would as an independent sovereign nation, but to
play the patriotism card is disingenuous.  Most people who are fighting the
determination of this and previous governments to bring about the death of
Britain as an independent democratic nation are not xenophobes or little
Englanders.  They are defenders of Britain's freedom to trade and to conduct
her diplomacy on the world stage for the greater good of her own citizens
and of all the world's peoples.  They have no desire to see Britain's
politicians, bureaucrats and business magnates make their fortunes in an
increasingly "globalised" world merely because Britain could exert greater
influence in that world as a member of a federal super-state which  would
rob her citizens of the power of democratic self-determination.

For many centuries, first England, then Britain, have been playing an
influential role in international affairs.  Being part of a deepening EU
will bring us nothing new there.  But, until last century, ordinary British
citizens did not enjoy the full privileges of democratic self-determination,
or full freedom and equality before the law, though these liberties and
privileges were always theoretically ours, guaranteed by Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights.  Only this last century have ordinary men and women attained
these privileges and freedoms and now enjoy them in full.    Proposals of
yet closer integration with the EU so as to create Mr Blair's European
"super-power" will rob the British people of the precious and hard-won
freedom of self determination.  For many of us, the continental system of
democracy which will replace our Anglo-Saxon model is inferior.  But this
present Government  will force the British to live under it without asking
whether we want it or not.

Mr Cook's words of two weeks ago make it clear that he is willing to see the
end of Britain as a self-governing nation.  However, the people are not so
foolish as to think that the EU can be a superpower without first becoming a
superstate.  The Government seeks greater influence for Britain as a member
of this "superpower".  But a nation becomes great, not only because of the
power it can exert in the world but also because that nation's power can
guarantee the political and judicial freedoms of its citizens.

>From what I understand of British Constitutional Law, the transfer of powers
that the Government seems set to sanction in Nice (as well much transfer of
power that has already taken place) is unlawful.

Rather than patriotic, this transfer of power is a betrayal of the British
people.  Mr Blair and Mr Cook argue that Britain will conserve her veto on
taxation, defence and social security.  But, since 1975, we have been
continually promised that there will be no further transfer of sovereignty
to Brussels.  As you know, these promises, made by both Labour and
Conservative governments, have always been broken.  Just as inevitably, the
Labour Government's assurances that there will be no EU superstate mean
nothing.  They are in a game where the other main players are determined to
bring an end to the nation state and create a politically united Europe.
Britain's only real choice is to continue playing this game to the rules set
by France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries or to withdraw.  The
Government is fooling itself, and the British people whom they serve, if
they think there is any other option.

At the very least, Parliament should see to it that Britain does not go any
further down the road to closer political unity
With the EU without a national debate and a referendum on the issue.

I present to you  here what I see as the real constitutional danger to
Britain of the present Government's continuing to cede political sovereignty
to the EU.   In particular, order that the British people might better
understand the possible consequences of the soon-to-be signed Treaty of
Nice, would you, as my MP and a parliamentarian, answer the constitutional
questions I ask in this letter?  The questions are in bold italics.  I would
also be grateful if you would confirm your agreement with the constitutional
conclusions that I reach in this letter, or inform me where I have reasoned
wrongly.

I regret the length of the letter, but the matter is one of supreme
importance.

Fundamental Principles of the British Constitution

There are two major principles on which the British Constitution stands.
They are:

1. The Supremacy of Parliament.
2. The Rule of Law.

The exercise of power by the government is conditioned by law, and no
British citizen can presently be subject to the arbitrary will of his ruler.
In 1688, the Bill of Rights finally established that the supremacy of law
shall be that of the Common Law, and gave legal standing to the supremacy of
Parliament.  I believe that the Bill of Rights has never been repealed.

Parliamentary supremacy requires that there should be no rival legislative
authority.  Yet, the British Government now recognises that EU law should
take precedence over legislation passed by the British Parliament.  Is this
situation not unconstitutional?

The Constitution also recognises that the electorate is the political
sovereign.  It is a Convention of the Constitution that Parliament exercises
its legislative supremacy with its responsibility to the people in mind.
Parliament exercises the sovereignty that the electorate entrusts to it for
the span of one parliament only (i.e. up to five years).  At the end of that
time, political sovereignty must be handed back to the people, undiminished.
No parliament may assume that it has been  mandated by the people to
surrender political sovereignty to any agency, unless the ruling party
commanding a majority vote in the House of Commons has been elected to
office having clearly stated, in its manifesto, its intention to cede
sovereignty.  Or else, that such a mandate has been given to Parliament by
the people in a referendum.  Neither the present government, nor any recent
government, has received such a mandate from the British people.  Thus, if
the Labour Government surrenders yet more of the sovereign rights of the
British people in Nice, will it not be acting unlawfully?

The Unlawfulness of EU Treaties which Limit British Parliamentary
Sovereignty

On the basis of the reasoning presented in the previous paragraph, all the
treaties signed since 1975 (the year of the referendum on Britain's staying
in the Common Market) which have surrendered any of Britain's sovereign
powers, successively, to the European Economic Communities, European
Communities and EU were unlawfully ratified, since the political sovereignty
handed back to the electorate at the end of the respective parliament's life
was unlawfully diminished compared to that which had been entrusted to it by
the British people at the corresponding general election.  Is this not so?

The Treaty of Nice

I understand that if the British Government agrees, in Nice, to give up
Britain's veto on justice and home affairs (JHA), the EU will acquire,
through the Treaty of Nice, the power to impose 'Corpus Juris' on the UK by
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), even against the will of the British
Parliament. Will you please check whether Corpus Juris can be imposed on
Britain, in the way that I mention?  The Home Office has written to inform
me that the British Government has not said it will accept QMV for JHA
issues.  But this message is not at all clear for the Government has not
included JHA in the list of vetoes you say you will retain for Britain.  Can
you please let me know whether the Government intend to give up the veto on
JHA or not?

If it does so, the surrender of the veto in this area will mean that the
rule of Common Law by which British governments govern this country will
have been modified, by the present Government, unconstitutionally; that is,
without any mandate from the British electorate.

As well as giving the EU the powers to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Britain by QMV, and against the wishes of the British Parliament, I read
that Corpus Juris empowers the European Court of Justice to set up a
'European Civil Disorder Squad' which would have powers to arrest and detain
British citizens on British soil indefinitely, without trial or any public
hearing.  Could you please confirm or deny that the European Court of
Justice would have these powers, if the Government surrenders the veto on
JHA?

I understand that an incipient European Police Force, EUROPOL has already
been established and its officers granted, by virtue of European Union
decisions and regulations passed by our Parliament, lifetime immunity from
prosecution whatever offences they may commit in the course of their duties.
That this is so was confirmed to me by a letter from the Home Office
Judicial Co-operation Unit, Reference 2767/00, dated 14 November 2000.  Is
such immunity not contrary to Common Law?

The Unlawfulness of the Abandonment of the British Veto on Justice and Home
Affairs

If the Government does surrender veto on justice and home affairs at Nice,
it will have committed, in that single act, an offence against the two most
fundamental principles of the British Constitution already mentioned: the
Supremacy of Parliament, and the Rule of Law.

In my understanding, if Corpus Juris were to be imposed on Britain, any UK
citizen suspected of committing a crime could be arrested on British soil on
the orders of a judge in another EU country, according to the laws of that
foreign country, without that judge having to produce any evidence or fulfil
any formality whatsoever.  The suspect could then be deported to the country
in which the Order of Arrest was raised and imprisoned on the orders of a
European Public Prosecutor, without charge, for 6 months, renewable for a
further 3 months, without any limit to the number of renewals.  The "trial"
would be heard by professional judges, specifically without "simple jurors"
or "lay magistrates".  These latter features of Corpus Juris seem
specifically aimed at nullifying the British trial system where crucial
decisions can be taken by ordinary people.  In Corpus Juris, the fate of a
person accused of a crime would be in the hands of professional jurists not
in the hands of his peers.  The accused would, thus, be subject to the
arbitrary will of judges of the European Court of Justice, employees of
European institutions, if not of the EU.  The accused will have been robbed
of his basic freedoms, presently guaranteed by the British Constitution and
the Common Law, by an unlawful act of the British Government.  Would you
please confirm or deny that the scenario I depict here is a possibility
under Corpus Juris?

Such precious freedoms presently enjoyed by British citizens as Habeas
Corpus and the right to be judged by their peers (Trial by Jury), as
enshrined in Common Law, protect our citizens against arbitrary conviction
and imprisonment; that is, against the arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of
power by the state.    Under the Writ of Habeas Corpus, an accused person
must be taken to a court subject to the British Crown, normally within 24
hours, and his accusers must produce evidence there and then and formally
charge him.  At any trial, the accused is adjudged innocent or guilty by his
fellow citizens.

If the Government gives up such freedoms in Nice would that not constitute a
heinous crime against the British people?  I cannot see how the Government
can describe the surrender of the JHA veto as "patriotic" and in the
national interest.

The Dangers Posed by Further Abandonment of British Parliamentary
Sovereignty in Nice

The British Government has received no mandate from the British electorate
to surrender to EU agencies any of  our people's political sovereignty or
freedoms guaranteed by Common Law.  Thus, I conclude that the British
Government has no lawful power to modify the rule of law by which it is
obliged to govern.  Do you accept this conclusion?

If the Government's surrender of any further political sovereignty, in Nice,
through the abandonment of yet more national vetoes, were subsequently to be
ratified by Parliament, Parliament would, itself, be acting
unconstitutionally because it, too, would be unlawfully diminishing its own
sovereignty and, with that, the political sovereignty of the British
electorate, without having received a mandate to do so from the electorate.
Do you agree that Parliament would be acting unconstitutionally by ratifying
a Treaty of Nice in which the Government had surrendered yet more political
sovereignty?

What is certain is that each successive surrender of our political
sovereignty leads inevitably to the surrender of yet more sovereignty.
Gradually, the British people are becoming less and less able to call to
account those in the EU who are daily taking decisions which affect our
lives.   The idea that, in the future, British Members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) will be able to call to account, in the British interest,
EU decision-makers is naive.  As the EU grows to include 20 or more nations,
protection of the national interest will become ever more difficult.
National party-divisions between MEPs will gradually and naturally be
eroded.  MEPs will inevitably realign along European party-lines, identify
less and less with their homeland, and will doubtless vote in accordance
with the policies of the EU-oriented parties.

If this comes to pass, with no further power to set the taxes and laws of
our land, Britain will cease to be a sovereign nation state.  Her people
will be powerless to call EU rulers to account in British affairs alone.
The British will in many ways be subject to the arbitrary rule of EU
decision-makers just as, in the past, they were subject to the arbitrary
rule of monarchs and  un-elected parliaments.

In such a situation, the potential for tyranny on a European scale will be
great.  For instance, how will a federal European parliament be able to
control a European Government which rules over so many disparate nations,
all with their different cultures and languages?  Centuries of progress in
Britain and in other lands, which have led to the growth of democratic
institutions that permit citizens to control the power of their political
rulers, will begin to be reversed.

Certainly, as Mr Cookstated last week, the influence of Britain in the world
may be greater in such a federal super-state than as an independent nation.
But the freedom before the law, and powers of self-determination of the
British people, will be greatly diminished.  How can the support of such a
development by the British people be described as "patriotic"?

This is why the Labour Government should not surrender any more of British
sovereignty to the EU.  The Government protests in vain that there will be
no federal European superstate (only a superpower), but that is the
direction in which the main powers of the EU are headed.  Britain has two
choices: either to step out of the way or be swept along with them.  The
whole story of Britain's involvement in the EU is one of a continual
transfer of political sovereignty to Brussels.  This is despite an assurance
to those of us who voted in 1975 to stay in the then Common Market that
there would be no loss of Britain's Parliamentary sovereignty.  The British
population has been lied to and duped constantly over EU affairs.  I am no
xenophobe or little Englander.  I once believed in ever closer association
of EU nations.  In pursuit of that belief, I spent 12 years on the continent
of Europe, learned to speak French and German fluently, and  brought up my
three children bi-lingually.  My job was and is community, international and
business relations.  I work at the heart of European cooperation in a
particular specialist field.  Just as I see the effective cooperation
between European companies in the furtherance of  pan-European trade, I also
see the corruption, incompetence and self interest of the Eurocrats whose
aim is to set up a soviet-style federation of vassal states subject to their
rule.  No one who works with these Eurocrats can fail to see what is going
on.

However, on the continent, these Eurocrats  cannot be accused of lying to
their people.  I hear and read of, every day, on German and French
television and radio, and in their newspapers,  politicians and ordinary
people discussing their aims to create a  federal Europe.  Only the British
are misled and lied to by their successive governments.

When the British people finally realise that their nation has been denuded
of its sovereign powers they will protest mightily.  As our Constitution
states that no Parliament can pass legislation which binds its successors, a
constitutional crisis will arise of which the magnitude and severity can
only be guessed at.  Presumably, the British Parliament will still retain
its power to repeal an Act of Parliament and thus will be able to repeal
that Act, or those Acts, which have recognised the supremacy of  EU
legislation in this country.  The shockwaves from any repeal of those Acts
will have unimaginable consequences for the political and economic well
being of our people and our nation.   It could be, of course, that
Parliament even votes away its ancient right not to be bound by previous
parliaments and effectively votes itself out of existence (as did the French
National Assembly in 1940) so placing itself in thrall to EU institutions.
If this were to happen then the seeds of possible civil war will have been
sown.

Conclusion

The only practical and constitutionally safe way of contemplating the
surrender of any further political sovereignty to the EU is by holding a
national debate and referendum on Britain's whole relationship with the EU
and on the extent of political harmonisation and/or union that Britain is
prepared to accept.

For the time being, however, the British Government should note that their
intention to give up yet more of Britain's vetoes, in Nice, will shake the
very pillars of the British Constitution.

For the Government to carry out its intention without a mandate from the
electorate  would be an act of the utmost folly.  Such an act would be a
betrayal of the British people's political sovereignty and would gravely
endanger the well-being and stability of the British nation.

I would be most grateful if you, as my MP, would answer the constitutional
questions I have asked in this letter and let me know where you stand
personally on the issue of the continuing surrender of the British people's
political sovereignty to the EU.

Yours sincerely


Les Fellows


Top