We're fighting the EU treaty in the courts

By John Gouriet

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 22/01/2008

As the UK Government embarks this week on its concentrated procedure to persuade Parliament to approve ratification of the EU Reform Treaty, to which Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have already committed the United Kingdom, Stuart Wheeler, who founded the spread-betting group, IG Index, is preparing a determined challenge in the courts to confront the EU constitution head-on.
# Telegraph campaign for an EU referendum

For a referendum, even if granted, would only indicate public opinion; the question may be slanted and the result shouldn't be binding unless it reveals the settled will of a clear majority of the whole electorate.

The Government is obviously so convinced of the popularity of what would be in reality the most shameful and complete surrender of sovereignty in our island history, that it is applying a three line whip for every day of the parliamentary proceedings.

It has reneged on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution, contrary to the wishes of over 80% of voters, because the new treaty signed in Lisbon is "not a constitution".

This is pure deceit based on the redrafting and amalgamation of the 2004 Constitution Treaty voted down by the French and Dutch and the 2007 Reform Treaty, but it retains some 96% of the constitutional principles published by former President Giscard D'Estaing in the original draft treaty.

This treaty was ratified by at least sixteen of the member states in 2005 and most - if not all - of the 27, including Britain, are expected to ratify the latest comprehensive version by 2009.

Amongst many restrictive conditions that are in conflict with our own long-established Constitution are first that the Lisbon Treaty establishes for the first time a single legal personality - a supranational state to be represented at the Security Council and global conferences, whereas in due course Britain may not.

Second that EU laws shall have supremacy over those of member states and third that the arrangements ratified in the Reform Treaty shall be for an unlimited period; i.e. forever. Fourth that henceforward the new treaty may be amended without further debate.

A pivotal question to be answered by the courts is whether Parliament really enjoys, or has ever enjoyed unfettered "supremacy" to do whatever it likes, as it is wont to claim.

We have been studying the British Constitution, most of which is written but not codified in one document, for ten years. We believe that ministers are limited by the confines of the Constitution; that they have no authority to surrender, or lend, sovereignty to another power, especially one that is unelected, unaccountable, irremovable and owes no allegiance to the British Crown.

They have no power to assume Royal prerogative or the right to break their oaths of allegiance and office, or cause the Sovereign to break his or her contract (Coronation Oath) with the people to govern according to their laws and customs.

If ministers try to enact bad or damaging law, the Crown, one of the three legs of governance, has a duty to refuse assent. Anyway, how can the strictly impartial Crown accept partial advice based on political whim?

We belive parliamentary "supremacy" and the doctrine of no government "binding its successor" are confined to the statutes of administrative law, not constitutional law.

We also believe that constitutional law cannot simply be repealed by introducing a new act. If it can be repealed at all, it must be repealed expressly in full and normal procedure.

Furthermore if the doctrine that Parliament may not destroy its own "omnipotence" is correct, by adopting permanent subservience to Brussels, from which already nearly 80% of our laws originate, its so-called "omnipotence" would indeed be destroyed.
 

In 1803 in the United States in a significant case, Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court Judge, Marshall, held that the US Constitution, based on the English original, was superior to a certain ill-conceived Act introduced by Congress and he declared the offending statute void.

We urgently need a Marbury v. Madison type case here and every one in Britain should be thankful that Stuart Wheeler is to ask the courts urgently whether there is any lawful authority for our government to over-ride our existing Constitution and impose the EU version.

I know counsel have assembled a powerful case to argue that the Government has no such authority and Mr. Wheeler is prepared to go all the way to the House of Lords to obtain justice for the British people and mark out the constitutional limits of parliamentary power. Without this the people no longer have any remedy against misfeasance or tyranny.

The case naturally is likely to be very expensive and all possible support is needed. Please send contributions marked DT and payable to, CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE c/o This England, PO Box 52, Cheltenham GL50 1YQ.
# John Gouriet was a co-founder of the Freedom and is Chairman of Defenders of the Realm, which challenged the Nice Treaty in 2003 and with This England Magazine raised 1,125 million signatures in 2004 to petition the Queen not to grant assent to an EU constitution without support of the majority of t
 

--