WHAT IS ARTICLE 50 THE TREATY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Screenshot 2016-08-11 at 17.02.15

 An Article by Rodney Atkinson brother of Rowan.

The United Kingdom cannot afford a long drawn out leaving process from the EU.  Free trade with the rest of the world and the freedom to set out our own fair trade terms, cannot wait for EU bureaucracy and timid UK politicians.

For instance, Theresa May went to Cardiff and pledged her support to Welsh steel making. Thousands of UK steel jobs have already been lost because of the illegal dumping of Chinese steel. The USA applied immediate high tariffs but the UK was powerless – and will remain so until we leave the EU. Welsh steel, British steel and the new Prime Minister cannot wait long. Brexit is urgent.

Those who illegally seduced us into the European Union used easily manipulated mechanisms to get us in, but now want complicated ones to get us out.

Those who now demand a specific law in Parliament to instigate Article 50 (or that the 1972 Act need be repealed) to leave the EU are rank hypocrites. Article 50 is a trap, as Freenations has repeatedly pointed out. It was inserted into European treaties at Lisbon and means the UK could be trapped for 2 years in the EU, paying ever higher budget contributions, forced to obey new rules, open to majority voting and with no right to vote! 

The Lisbon Treaty was never approved by the British people and such a fundamentally oppressive NEW clause would give the UK’s the right to rescind to the treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

When we joined the European Union with the Accession Treaty in 1972 – and incrementally added to our powerlessness through other Treaties over the years –  those treaties were signed under Crown Prerogative powers granted by the Queen to Ministers WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT OF PARLIAMENT.

When Douglas Hurd the Foreign Secretary laid the Maastricht Treaty before Parliament it was a fait accompliand he – rightly – said that “Parliament cannot overturn the Maastricht Treaty” (or any other treaty for that matter) and MPs had not been involved in its approval or signing. The same was true of the EU (EEC) Accession Treaty of 1972.

Although a few patriots argued at the time that this was an unprecedented and illegal use of the Crown Prerogative, it was accepted by all concerned with our constitutional surrender to the EU. The people were not asked whether they approved of the removal of their sovereignty.

Therefore, on the same logic and precedent, Ministers, similarly empowered today but this time by a clearly expressed will of the people (and without reference to Parliament) should do the reverse – ie rescind the Treaties. This is entirely unrelated to what happens to the 1972 Act which approved the UK’s Accession to the EU (or EEC as it was then).

Without any Treaties to oblige us to take any notice of the demands of the Euro-State then the 1972 Act can easily be disposed of or indeed ignored. My point is that with the rescinding of the treaties the 1972 act becomes pointless and therefore of no power

It is as easy to revoke theTreaties as it was to sign them (if it is not then the whole fascist charade can be dismissed anyway). Ministers act with crown prerogative powers and rescind the Treaties.  Neither signing nor rescinding required the involvement of parliament. Parliament ratified the fait accompli in 1973. But the law to ratify has no value today if what it ratifies, disappears.

But it is worth making clear how illegal the original joining of the EEC was – and there have been many democratic and internationally recognised grounds for dismissing those “Treaties” signed since 1972.

THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

sets out what a Treaty is, how it can be legally entered into and how a Treaty can be rescinded. The Vienna Treaty notes that:

“the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) rule are universally recognized” and

“the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, such as the principles of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, of the sovereign equality and independence of all States, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States, of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,

But the self determination of the nations who signed the EU Treaties were in fact thereby removed and decisions were taken by the unelected and imposed behind the backs of national democratic parliaments. There followed the greatest of all “interference in the domestic affairs” of nation states!

In the United Kingdom there was no free consent of the British people to the EEC Accession Treaty at the time of the signing and we know from his later admission, that Edward Heath misled the British people about the loss of democratic sovereignty, so the British people had no self determination by a vote – and they were misled.

Parliament as we now know, was also misled – by the 30 years suppression of the letter to Heath by the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir who warned against the loss of the “unprecedented” Constitutional Rights and Sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention makes clear (Article 49 Fraud) that a State can invalidate its consent to a Treaty

“If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.” and in Article 50 (Corruption of a representative of a State)

“If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.”

We know that Germany bribed Edward Heath (**) with a (post factum) gift of £250,000 in the form of the award of the Prize money for the Charlemagne Prize – the Karl’s Prize of the German City of Aachen specifically rewarding those who promote the building of the European State – a prize founded by the Hitler regime and then re-founded after the war by “former” Nazis.

DEFINITION OF A TREATY:

The Vienna Convention also stipulates what a Treaty is: Under Article 53

“Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. It is a norm of international law that a Treaty is:

A Formal Agreement between two or more states such as an alliance or trade arrangement (Dictionary). A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organisations.

A formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or otherinternational relations (but not pertaining to DOMESTIC CONSTITUTIONS)

A TREATY IS THEREFORE NOT DEFINED AS AN AGREEMENT TO CHANGE OR DIMINISH THE INTERNAL CONSTITUTION OF SIGNATORY STATES NOR TO AFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF THEIR PEOPLES AND PARLIAMENTS.

THEREFORE THE EUROPEAN TREATIES – INCLUDING THE UK’S SIGNING OF THE ACCESSION TREATY IN 1972 – ARE NOT TREATIES AS DEFINED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

THEY ARE THEREFORE INVALID AND HAVE NO APPLICABILITY TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE OR REPEAL THEIR OWN LAWS IN PARLIAMENT.

That is the truth. But truth has little power in Politics and certainly none in our corrupt British political class so the assumption that we were so bound was accepted by virtually all the members of the British Parliament. They were misled, they were lied to, they were deceived into voting to give away the powers that were not their’s to surrender.

But now we must finalise the end of this tawdry period of British history – and do so quickly. The first and critical step is the repudiation and rescinding of the 1972 Accession Treaty and all those which followed and to do so just as they were originally concluded – by Ministers using Crown Prerogative Powers.

****************

Screenshot 2016-07-16 at 07.44.31

Has Theresa May given Nicola Sturgeon a veto over Brexit? Prime Minister promises not to trigger Article 50 until the Scots have signed up.

  • New Prime Minister makes Edinburgh first official trip of premiership
  • Signals importance she is placing on stopping Scotland splitting from UK
  • Sturgeon says she looks forward to ‘constructive’ relationship with May.

Britain’s departure from the European Union could be delayed to appease Scotland, Theresa May indicated yesterday.

Speaking after talks with Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh, the Prime Minister said she would not trigger the formal exit process until she had agreed a ‘UK approach’ with leaders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mrs May’s visit to Scotland, just 48 hours into her premiership, was designed to underline her determination to keep the union together.

She warned Miss Sturgeon she would not sanction a second referendum on Scottish independence.

But she struck a conciliatory tone on Europe, saying she wanted to discuss the terms of Britain’s exit with Scotland’s first minister before starting formal negotiations with Brussels.

Downing Street last night denied Mrs May had handed a veto to Miss Sturgeon, who wants to keep Scotland in the EU.

But Tory MP Steve Baker, chairman of the group Conservatives for Britain, warned against allowing the SNP to delay Brexit.

‘No region of the UK should be allowed to hold the rest of the country to ransom,’ he said.

EU leaders, and some Tory MPs, are pressing Mrs May to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty immediately. This is the formal process for leaving the EU, which fires the starting gun on two years of negotiations.

But Mrs May has said she may not act on the issue until next year. Speaking after talks with Miss Sturgeon yesterday, she said: ‘I’ve already said that I won’t be triggering Article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives.

‘It is important that we establish that before we trigger Article 50.’

Asked if Scotland could have a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, Mrs May said: ‘I want to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom out of our negotiations for the UK leaving the EU, but I’m willing to listen to options.

‘I’ve been very clear with the first minister today that I want the Scottish government to be fully engaged in our discussions and our considerations, and I will listen to any options that they bring forward.’

Miss Sturgeon welcomed her comments, saying: ‘I was very pleased that Theresa May said that she was absolutely willing to consider any options that the Scottish government now bring forward to secure Scotland’s relationship with the European Union, and that the process that now takes shape by the UK government will be open and flexible and that the Scottish government will be fully involved in that.’

A Whitehall source last night insisted Scotland would not be allowed to block Brexit, saying Mrs May’s comments had been ‘over-interpreted’.

The source added: ‘The Prime Minister is talking, as she has before, about having a UK approach. She is willing to listen to options, but that does not in any way amount to a veto.’

Mrs May met Miss Sturgeon in Bute House, where Britain’s two most powerful women posed for photographs on the doorstep – prompting the first minister to post a message on Twitter, saying: ‘Politics aside – I hope girls everywhere look at this photograph and believe nothing should be off limits for them.’

Afterwards, Mrs May told the Daily Mail: ‘I don’t see the need for a second independence referendum. The Scottish people voted in a referendum two years ago. They gave a very clear message.

‘The Scottish government and the UK Government agreed to abide by the decision of the people. I don’t there should be a second independence referendum.’

Miss Sturgeon has warned she could demand a second referendum in the wake of the EU referendum, in which a majority of Scots voted to stay in the EU.

A Downing Street spokesman last night said: ‘The Prime Minister has been very clear that it will take time for the UK government to agree its position for the negotiations. This position has not changed. As part of this, we will of course want to engage fully with the Scottish government and listen to their views.’

Screenshot 2016-06-28 at 21.18.37

What is Article 50?

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows a member state to notify the EU of its withdrawal and obliges the EU to try to negotiate a ‘withdrawal agreement’ with that state – it involves five points laid out below.

  1. “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

The form of any withdrawal agreement would depend on the negotiations and there is therefore no guarantee the UK would find the terms acceptable. The EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK on the entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, if no new agreement is concluded, after two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to extend the negotiating period.

During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal.

However, if the final agreement cuts across policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection – as many recent EU FTAs have done (for example with Peru and with Columbia) – it will be classed as a ‘mixed agreement’ and require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU. The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.

BUT

BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID, ALL YOU VOTE LEAVERS! There are no depths to the level of skulduggery that Cameron and Co won’t stoop to in trying further delay tactics on Brexit. Presently, Article 50 allows EU members to secede from the Union by giving two years notice. However, as of March 31st 2017 Article 50 will be subjected to a dreaded QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTE! This means that after March 31st 2017 Britain’s exit will require 14 other States to support our decision to leave! ARTICLE 50 MUST BE IMPLEMENTED NOW! before that happens. Please make sure you share this information as widely as possible. Everyone needs to know the danger we are in.

Nigel spells Brexit out to the Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s