Free polls from Pollhost.com
Who are the most contemptible?
EU Commissioners MEPs EU Commission Bureaucrats National Politicians  All the above are beneath our contempt   

06 October 2009

Letter to Lord Phillips, Senior Lord of Appeal, copied to H.M. the Queen with replies

This letter is from last summer and has Mrs Palmer's own comment about the reply from the Palace at the very end/

Address removed

5th July 2009.

Lord Chief Justice Phillips of Worth Matravers,

Senior Lord of Appeal,

House of Lords,

London, SW1A OPW.

Dear Lord Phillips,

I have read this week that the Highest Court in Germany has ruled that the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with their Constitution although it has withheld approval for Ratification. As I, along with many people in this Country believe our Common Law Constitution is the best in the world, I would like the Highest Court in this land of ours to examine whether the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with our Common Law Constitution and Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. Of particular concern - although there are a great many more - I put forward these named headlines.

Supreme Court. “The freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.” A very basic understanding in our ‘democracy’ brought about by the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Supreme Court in the USA struck down Congress in 1803, and the European Court of Justice, an outside ‘body’ may strike down our Parliament. Will our Supreme Court be able to strike down our Parliament or will the European Court of Justice make the final decision? Or perhaps, The Court of Human Rights to which the EU will become a party? In following the debates on the issue of having a Supreme Court here in the UK, it did seem to be the ‘suggestion’ of the European Union. Sadly, the House of Lords and the people of this Country are losers in these changes. However, maybe the first matter the Supreme Court may deal with, I hope and Pray, is the compatibility or not, of the Treaty of Lisbon, which includes all previous EU Treaties, to our Common Law Constitution and the solemn Coronation Oath made by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to whom we all owe true allegiance. Our allegiance and protection of the Crown is being hampered by EU legislation and the Treaties signed and ratified by our Government, and by those that have served in the EU and appear to put the EU before this, their country. It is the people’s bound duty to protect the Crown and their Country. Twice in living memory we have fought two World Wars so to do. Looking at forward EU Legislation and the “Opt ins” and ‘opt outs’, I recognise the fact, we eventually “Opt in” where there may have been an “opt out”.

The Royal Prerogative. I take here the smallest Article (47) in the Treaty of Lisbon, “The Union shall have Legal Personality”. This article is for the EU to “speak with one voice” to ratify Treaties on behalf of all 27 Countries (War making Power? There is no mention that this is not so) As far as the UK is concerned our Government uses the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown for many things and particularly so for ratifying Treaties. The power of the Crown is used through the Royal Prerogative. It is held in trust by Government Ministers and to pass on to the next maybe different Government to use. Through Article 47, it means that our Government has given the Royal Prerogative to foreigners to use through the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. The power of the British Crown is the ultimate authority (sovereignty) of Parliament and its Treaty making instrument, the Royal Prerogative. It is not in the authority of Government to give away this Royal Prerogative to anyone and certainly not to foreigners, for it is not theirs to give, it belongs to The British Crown.

Has Government in ratifying this Treaty revoked the power of the Crown as exercised by Government denying the exclusive authority of the British Government to use the Royal Prerogative in those areas they have agreed to allow the EU to use the powers of the Royal Prerogative in their stead? In the doing, the EU “Binds the Crown and Government”. Not only is our Government made subservient to the EU, the Crown is also by this action. I write of “The Crown”, for I recognise that the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority (sovereignty) of Parliament and that power, (sovereignty) is used by Government through the Royal Prerogative. It is that sovereign power they have given away to the European Union for Article 47. As the EU Treaties are designed for all time and the EU is planning for the next 50 years, it would seem to be a gift of which there is no return, given by a temporary Government, binding every new future Government and future Heirs to the throne. I submit this was not in the gift of ministers and that they could, at a future date, be held guilty of sedition against the State.

The Queen as an EU Citizen? Although this disgraceful episode began through the Treaty of Maastricht, it is given more depth in “Lisbon”. On one of the Royal web sites is, Reading like an abdication, “Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is now a citizen of the European Union”. In our Courts, people bow to the person who may be representing the Crown in those Courts. The news that Her Majesty is now just a citizen of the EU has gone as far a field as Australia. I am ashamed for and of those that brought this about and deeply more so for those that would continue this action. Their solemn Oath of Allegiance is to Her Majesty, it is not to be taken lightly. I feel I have no need to pursue this matter for I am sure you Sir, are acutely aware of all the implications that this EU Citizenship for our beloved Queen brings with it, although I am quite prepared to defend the British Crown to the best of my ability, if need be.

I turn to the full and new article 188R The Solidarity Clause now introduced into the Treaty of Lisbon which, unlike NATO where we have a choice, Article 188R compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”. I have in mind the separate AGREEMENT, (also in the Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003) in which Article188R will have dramatic effect. (I also note that the Eurogendarmerie can enter this Country fully armed even though we are not party to it-see Clause 5 Treaty of Velsen) This is the first paragraph of the AGREEMENT.

“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.

These forces also have been given immunity. The people had their RIGHT to hold guns for their protection, (Bill of Rights) removed after Dunblane, and Michael James Burke lost his appeal for his ‘right’ to have a gun as in the Bill of Rights 1688. Foreign armed forces and police can enter this country fully armed yet the people may not be armed even though their Common Law Constitution clearly says they may. The present Government has signed that Agreement (EU Directive). We need to ask what reaction the people will have to the sight of foreign troops here in the UK fully armed!! (I noted the debate in Parliament re “Hot pursuit” when guns were to be left on another shore).

I am trying Sir, only for our Law Lords to compare the Treaty of Lisbon’s compatibility to our own Common Law Constitution and Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath for I believe our Common Law Constitution to be no less important to the British people than Germany’s Constitution, is to the people of Germany. To be able to withdraw the Treaty of Lisbon before all 27 states ratify it, if needs be, and for it to be put before the people in a referendum so that the sovereign people of this Country may have a say, for without the sovereign people voting for MP’s there would be no Parliament at all.

I, sir, along with the vast majority of people here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have very little faith or trust in those that presently sit on the Green Benches of the House of Commons, in the magnificent Palace of Westminster. None have listened to the people, yet I find the people’s mood strange. The European Parliament election was very marked by a coming together of the people without words or deeds and without any leadership. They also voted in a way that they have not normally done – many of course did not vote at all. It seemed like a warning except that no one actually "started it". Perhaps this is why the British remain a mystery to some and underestimated by others?

Our MP’s seem too wrapped up in their own affairs to bother about the people. Yet the people are angry, an anger that started by the Telegraph News Paper revealing to the people the abuse their elected representatives have taken with their money. It is an anger that is not diminishing. The people are beginning to realise the extent they have been betrayed, not just by the money but in the ratification of a very integrating constitutional EU Treaty in which there may be no turning back if it is ratified by all.

I regret bitterly at having to write this letter, although I cannot shirk the duty I am honour bound towards our beloved Queen.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Palmer JP.

(Copy to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)

The reply. (I have had to type out for you because I do not have a Scanner)

Address removed

13 July 2009

Dear Mrs Palmer

Thank you very much for your letter dated 5 July addressed to Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.

With regard to the issues that you have raised in your letter unless the matter is before Lord Phillips or any of the Law Lords in their judicial capacity, it would by inappropriate for any of them to comment on the various issues which you have raised. None of the Lords of appeal in Ordinary take part in the legislative business of the House and therefore it would be inappropriate for them to enter into debate on political issues which may later come before them in their judicial capacity.

I am sorry that Lord Phillips is unable to be of any help.

Yours sincerely

Signature here.

Miss A Onatade

Office Manager.

And the reply from Buckingham Palace.

I have today received a reply from Buckingham Palace to my letter sent to Lord Chief Justice Phillips of Worth Matravers, dated 5th July 2009. The reply is dated 4th August and reads;-

Dear Mrs Palmer, The Private Secretary has asked me to thank you for your letter of 6th July, I am to say that her Majesty has taken careful note of your views you express regarding the Treaty of Lisbon,

Yours sincerely

Mrs Sonia Bonici, Senior Correspondence Officer.

I found the wording of this letter rather strange, compared to others from the palace.!


Unanswered letter to the United Nations

Anne Palmer's letter of 20th February 2008 is as follows:

Address removed

The United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland.

20th February 2008.

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,

Secretary General, United Nations,

New York,


Dear Mr Secretary-General.

SUBJECT: The Treaty of Lisbon. (Letter to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which I am led to believe is also lodged at the United Nations).

I have followed the EU Treaties over quite a number of years and have taken in the meaning of those Treaties. Particularly clear was the now rejected “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, most of the contents of which have now been brought forward in the Treaty of Lisbon.

What I find so particularly distasteful is that now the people are beginning to be aware that those who want power have, during the “Time of Reflection” brought about such a muddled Treaty to be able to say it is completely different to the rejected “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The so very obvious excuse being to avoid holding the promised referendum in any State except Ireland whose constitution is such that a referendum has to be held on any constitutional change. The EU and Heads of States in this instance, if this Treaty is allowed to go through in its present state may have brought organisations that many people look up to, into disrepute.

Many of the Articles in the Treaty have been renumbered three times. This has caused much of the confusion and it has obviously prevented many people from having any comprehension as to the full implications that the Treaty holds for their future and for future generations. Yet it will alter the way they are governed for decades to come.

Many have been the comments from those in power as to the real meaning of the Treaty. “That it is the same as the Constitution, only put another way” etc, and others, particularly in this Country, “that it (the then Reform Treaty-now the Treaty of Lisbon) “is nothing like the EU Constitution and therefore there is no need of the (promised) referendum”. So very many are these kind of comments from people ‘of note’, from many countries, from important dignitaries that there is more than enough ‘evidence’ to prove this point.

It is a Treaty that perhaps the Vienna Convention on Treaties would not want to be party to, particularly so in view of its ‘guide lines’ or “laws” on the subject. Perhaps the EU’s methods are distasteful to the United Nations that even the United Nations might in the end shrink away from it too, for it has its high reputation to consider throughout the world. Could or would the United Nations or the Vienna Convention on Treaties accept a European Union to “Speak with its one voice for all” knowing that the EU had deliberately set out to deceive 500 million people with such a Treaty?

The Treaty appears to have been deliberately muddled to confuse the people (and possibly MP’s) so that none can understand the true meaning of its contents. In complete contrast to the relative transparency surrounding the drawing up of the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” the Heads of State and the EU leaders have quite deliberately opted for opacity. This was done in the ‘time of reflection’. The Treaty is, however, so incomprehensible that it is almost impossible to unravel. It is manifestly obvious that ‘that the aim was to confuse’ so that leaders could say that it is nothing like the previous EU Constitutional Treaty so there is no need to have a referendum.

Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written and clear so that all involved can understand the true meaning of them for these are meant to be long lasting and binding, therefore great trouble should be taken in the drawing up of the Treaties-the previous now abandoned EU Constitution took longer than two years. All should understand fully in complete truthfulness and in complete understanding so that in the ratification and the people that they apply to can understand them fully.

Where there are deliberate attempts by authors of Treaties to confuse the people, this brings only shame and once again, more lack of trust in politicians. This may well lead to unrest amongst the people – particularly in the United Kingdom where it conflicts with a thousand years of constitutional statute law still in force - -if they feel they have been either ignored or tricked. This is a Treaty that will alter the way of life of all the people in each Nation State seemingly forever; the people at this particular time deserve the true meaning of the European Union and its aims for the future.

I ask that you please look at this Treaty and see if it comes up to the standards you would expect of a long lasting and binding Treaty? If there is any doubt on your part Sir, I would request, as a matter of the utmost urgency, that it be re-written and presented once more to the people in the 27 Nation States concerned.

I thank you for your time,

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer (Mrs)

A very ordinary citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

A copy to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.


The law-breaking involved in forcing through the Lisbon Treaty ratification.

The following is from Anne Palmer:

Holding a true and fair Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. 5.10.2009. Please read. Anne Palmer. 5.10.2009.

Many of the people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are looking towards the Conservatives at this moment and wondering if the Conservatives will indeed hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. They have said that they will hold a referendum if not all States have ratified it.

I will take this matter a little further, I found that one Treaty was actually withdrawn from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, although not all those taking part had ratified, thus proving it can be done. It was re-instated a very short while later. I did not delve further for one withdrawal was proof that ‘ it could at least have been withdrawn before all 27 States have ratified the Treaties. But what if ALL have ratified? Do the people just accept that the treaties have been ratified by Governments that have known, without doubt, that ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon was against the known wishes of the people? The contents in the Treaty are, as far as this country is concerned, contrary to the people’s own Common Law Constitution, "That no foreign Prince, person prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. Certainly the Treaty of Lisbon had not been put before the independent Judges in the Law Lords or in the now new Supreme Court. This has been done in other Countries, in Germany for one. Is our long standing constitution any less important the to the people of this Country than the people of Germany’s constitution is to them? (I am aware of the argument that foreign laws are put through the European Communities Act 1972 etc, but they are still instigated in the EU at a very grave cost to the British people, forces and Constitution.)

Because I felt very strongly about the deliberately muddled Treaty of Lisbon I wrote to the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties and to the United Nations on the 20th February 2008. I have not received a reply from either. Maybe because I am just an ordinary citizen and considered as of no importance or maybe because there is nothing they can say to deny the words that I have written.

However, since writing that letter, a number of (very important) people-on the ‘yes’ side- have stated that the Treaty of Lisbon was deliberately muddled, that it does indeed hold the same contents that were originally in the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” which the people of two major Countries had given a resounding “NO” to in their country’s referendum and which, because of their rejection had been withdrawn at that point, not giving the United Kingdom the chance for all the people to have their say, which, had a referendum taken place it might have been a very good indicator of how the people feel about ‘deeper and more meaningful integration into the European Union’ once and for all.

The people however, were ignored.

After the people of Ireland gave, in their second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon a resounding “YES”, we began to find out why. Many have called “LISBON” the Re-named EU Constitution, which is what it is, yet “Lisbon” was deliberately muddled up to confuse the people, and so that very few would be able to understand its contents. Reasons and proof enough to withdraw the whole treaty even if ALL have ratified it and put forward in a referendum? Re-drafted? Rejected by the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties as not up to the standard required by that Institution? . Penalties placed upon the European Union as an example to others?

If the Convention is to mean anything at all, it must insist that its articles are adhered to. It must reject the EU’s claim that all 27 States have ratified the Treaty. It is a Treaty that does not comply with the rules laid down by the Convention’s founders. It is a Treaty that has been ratified by Heads of Government (perhaps wanting to preserve their jobs?) against the known wishes of the very people they are supposed to represent.

The people were ignored.

Every person should have had the opportunity of voting on such a constitutional treaty, there is no doubt about that because it completely changes and touches upon all their lives and future generations forever.

David Cameron has issued a statement, "This weekend we will hear the results of the referendum in Ireland on the re-named EU Constitution. I want to make one thing clear: there will be no change in our policy on Europe and no new announcements at the conference." (Richard North)

Liam Murphy, a Dublin cab driver and a "no" voter, says: "We have been fed lies and blackmailed with scaremongering about the economy. It is scaremongering by a government that just wants to hang on to its own jobs." At a polling station in the Dublin suburb of Tallaght, Kathleen Cummins said that the Irish had been "bullied and treated like children" into holding the second vote. And, like children, they've run to nanny. (Richard North’).

The people were ignored again.

The Commentators on TV on Saturday (3rd October 2009) agreed as the result of the Irish Referendum came out and Brian Cowen read out his statement, they said words to the effect, "Well he has saved his job now that the people have voted 'yes'". I wonder how it feels that in order to 'save HIS job', he has had to betray the people of Ireland? What a price to pay just to save HIS job. The people will be ‘paying, one way or another’ for the rest of their lives and beyond, and all because one man in Ireland wanted to save his job?

Have we had to accept the Treaty of Lisbon just to save the jobs of all those concerned in trying to push it through? British Members of Parliament and Government swear a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown and through the Crown to all the people in this Country. Oh yes, it matters, it really matters because violation of that oath is the very essence of treason. Have they put their JOBS and European Union integration before the British Crown and people of their own Country? We know now for sure that there should have been a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon but this was quashed because it was realised that the people of this country would reject it. The British Government did not dare to hold a referendum. The same applied to people in other Countries, for they too were denied a say.

The people were ignored.

The Treaty of Lisbon was deliberately muddled. For the second referendum held in Ireland the EU Commission spent a great deal of money. There was also a leaflet sent to each house-hold explaining the alleged benefits of ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon. This action proves beyond any shadow of doubt just how deliberately muddled the Treaty of Lisbon was especially compared to the straight forward and easy to understand by the general public, the rejected “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” that the EU decided to ‘inform’, explain the ‘benefits’ allegedly held for them in the Treaty. Although THAT previous constitutional Treaty was rejected, there was no thought or need to bring forth a booklet explaining THAT Treaty for it was indeed easy to understand. This makes the case stronger, even though this might be the very first time in the history of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that this has happened, but the Articles in the Convention are there for a reason. The people need to know exactly what Government is doing in their name. If the people find out they have been lied to and through those deliberate lies they are tied into a Treaty which brings with it matters that they are totally against, it may set forth such unrest, civil disobedience the like of which has never been seen before and not just in one country either. The deliberate and carefully planned manipulation of innocent people that need to believe and trust their politicians are at stake here.

The people will find out they have been betrayed by their own politicians.

What I can only describe as the ‘farce’ of the debates on Lisbon in the House of Commons, where few turned out to ‘debate’, yet all “came out of the woodwork” to place their vote, brought shame to all that witnessed the proceedings. The people need to trust the ones they have voted for.

These comments from Anthony Coughlan, Ireland

With limitless money provided by the Brussels Commission, the political parties in the European Parliament, the Irish Government and private business firms, Ireland's Yes-side forces easily outspent the Nos by at least ten to one in a referendum campaign which was unique in modern Irish history for its massive unlawfulness and breaches of the country's referendum law.

There were at least six dimensions to this illegality:

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2.) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland's Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government's unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called "assurances" of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country's statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission's Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various "solo-runs" on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O'Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes. End on Anthony’s Comments here.

I have placed certain points although I am sure that there are many more others can add, but I want to get this out while the Conservative Conference is still on.

This comment of mine is on the Conservative blog now

Andrew Marrs’ interview today (Sunday 4th) was as disastrous as last weeks. I wonder how much longer he will remain in HIS job. I admire Mr Cameron for not losing his temper with him. I nearly slapped the television a couple of times!

I am aware that in International Law, a Treaty that has been ratified by all listed Countries is said to be completed but remember “No Parliament may bind” and there is a case to be challenged that the Treaty does not come up to the standards required by articles in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (If each country had read that convention, none would have ratified it) in that it should be clear and precise and that all should be able to understand it. I even wrote to that Organization and to the United Nations over twelve months ago with a letter of complaint that it does not comply. So, part of the job is already done.

A new Treaty should be drawn up and the people of each separate Country should have a referendum. End

And this (of mine) is on the Telegraph blog

With ALL THREE Political Parties wanting to remain in the EU to be governed FOREVER by EU laws, it is not the people that have brought about the destruction of their own Country. Re-oranising it into 12 REGIONS and YES Scotland and Wales may have their Assemblies and Parliament but as far as the EU is Concerned, Scotland is a Region of the European Union as is Wales.

Even the new Supreme Court would never have come into being had we not been in the EU in the first place. It is actually a condition of Article 6 Convention on Human Rights but under Lisbon the EU as a whole will also become party to the ECHR and that will make a big difference.

How much longer will the UK be on the Security Council in the United Nations once Lisbon comes into FORCE?

Well here is a little something the UK and EU should have thought of. When the time comes when the people have nothing left to lose, it is the time for Governments-if they are STILL in operation- to realise that the people will turn on those that 'lost it for them,' that it was indeed "their own" that gave it all away or deliberately destroyed all that the people hold dear and that their relatives once fought and died to prevent strangers (foreigners) from Governing them in the past.

The people of Ireland will very soon come to realize they have been tricked. And no one likes to be made fools of.

Mr Cameron is way out of touch if he is unaware just how angry the people are. They are aware for instance just how many Conservatives were in the Commons for the debates on LISBON and how everybody came out of the Woodwork just in time to VOTE and who actually voted for the Treaty and who voted for Bill Cash's Amendment.

Remember, you should always save enough crumbs from the banquet to throw to the birds. Sadly neither the EU nor the British Government care two hoots about them. END.

The people of this Country will not continue to vote or contribute to a British Government that cannot Govern and only obey EU orders like the rest of us.
Quite simply, the Government has not spoken on behalf of the people of this Country and the PM has put the EU before his allegiance to the British Crown and his own Country. In putting this argument before the Conservatives, they have the opportunity to challenge the legality of the Treaty of Lisbon re the articles as required in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It may not have been challenged before, but maybe there has never been a Treaty before with the deliberate intention of deceiving 500 plus million people, not just the people here in the UK? I suggest that The Treaty of Lisbon does not comply with the articles in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and therefore none should not allow the Treaty of Lisbon to come into force.

This, I hope, opens the way for the Conservatives to take the lead and take up the challenge to tackle the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and then hold the very much needed referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. You see, it can be done. If, on the other hand it was to be challenged via the UK Supreme Court to see if it compatible with our Common Law Constitution, it needs to be done before Lisbon comes into force because after, the real force of Lisbon may come into its own and the British Supreme Court will have to look at all the EU Treaties and the Treaty of Lisbon in particular before even beginning to look at other matters. Why not both together?

If, as many Conservatives seem to believe, the UK Government is still sovereign then it can repudiate the Treaty as a new Government and/or withdraw it, claiming that the people were deliberately denied the promised referendum on it because Lisbon does hold the same contents –and further articles that should have had a referendum on- as the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, and put it before the people as promised. Or there is always Lord Denning’s ruling re Macarthys v Smith.

Failing THAT: The House of Commons has had its say. The Lords have had their say. The Government have had their say. The people have been ignored. However, the people do have one dreadful option. The Lords last used Magna Carta, Clause 61 at the time of Nice. It is time for the people to have their voices heard. The people can no longer go against their own Common Law Constitution knowing that should the Treaty of Lisbon come into FORCE it would take precedence even over our long standing Constitution. According to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution, is an act of treason. There is no point at all in having a constitution, which protects the rights of the people, IF IT IS NOT USED. If the Treaty of Lisbon actually comes into force without any attempt by any Member of Parliament trying to prevent it, The people in the end will not be ignored. They will indeed have their say, one way or another. END

From the Democracy Movement. Commission out of Control.


From Eureferendum-Richard North’s site



The following protest to the Irish legal authorities was sent before the second referendum vote was held:

Thursday 24 September 2009

Dear Mr Justice Clarke

May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.

May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-

1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland's Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan: Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)

3. The Government's unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called 'assurances' from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court's 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;

4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements 'containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill', namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.

May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.

The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.

The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State 'confirms its commitment to the European Union' which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year's referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.

You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.

Nowhere in the Referendum Commission's information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an 'additional citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens' rights and duties vis- a -vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.

One would think that there could be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the 'information' material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority.

You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the 'additional' citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU 'citizenship' of today.

It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the e4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.

As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage.

In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the 'solo runs' on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this.

Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several examples I could give, I quote two. A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to 'propose' and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make 'suggestions' only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person's appointment being in the gift of the Big States.

You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.

Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the 'additional' citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical 'complementary' EU citizenship we are said to have today was 'of no great consequence' either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.

You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them 'the general explanation of the subject matter' of the Constitutional Amendment 'and of its text', on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.

On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission's failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Coughlan

President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?