Time for a Break?

A question which can apply at many levels.

Today Britain takes a break from the European Union. I hope it won't be a long one.

But the break I propose to address this evening (when I wrote this), is whether it is time to take a break from "the News". I have been a compulsive news consumer for as long as I can remember. Whether it was newspapers; radio & TV news from the 1970s onwards - through to the era of rolling news, and the explosion of access to news (and some that don't deserve being called that) sites. As of the 1st January this year I had subscriptions to The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France), Washington Post (USA) and China Daily (China). I also took news via alerts on my iPhone & iPad from all of those and others - as well as being signed up for emails from Roll Call; The Hill; the House of Commons Library; and as a result of being the Labour Party Candidate for Buckingham during the recent General Election, I still receive all the news from the Labour Party Press Office including Overnight Media & Broadcast briefs on a daily basis. I have also been a frequent user of twitter.

Enough is surely enough?

I've been cutting down - I'm so disillusioned by the News and Current Affairs output of BBC TV & Radio, that I no longer listen. I'm running my subscriptions to newspapers down - and unsubscribing from alerts and emails - and rarely look at Twitter.

Is that going too far?

Whilst down in London recently (one of the British Museum visits) I popped into Foyles and purchased a book called "STOP READING THE NEWS" by Rolf Dobelli. It really is a good read - with some very sensible points. It is subtitled "A Manifesto for a Happier, Calmer and Wiser Life', I would thoroughly recommend it to you.



Its contents include
- How I gave up the News (did I mention it was a signed copy?)
- News is to the Mind What Sugar is to the Body
- Radical Abstinence
- The Thirty-Day Plan
- The Soft Option
- News is |rrelevant
- News gets Risk Assessment All Wrong
- News is a Waste of Time
- News Obscures the Big Picture
- News is Toxic to Your Body
- News Confirms Our Mistakes.....
...
- News Encourages Terrorism
- News Destroys Our Peace of Mind

Dobelli also deals with potential objections to his argument, including 'What About Democracy'

In my view he makes some very good points. Do read it yourself!

I've been reflecting on what he says, and how I feel about some of the news and certain news organisations (and last night went to see the excellent film, "Bombshell" (French Title - "Scandale") about Fox News - part of the truly awful Murdoch Empire) - and came to the following conclusions -

I will "stop reading the News" - that doesn't mean that I won't be keeping myself informed about what is going on in the world. But instead of "consuming news", I'll be harvesting information about issues that matter to me. (Spoiler alert - Education, The Environment, Transport, Health (particularly avoidable illnesses)

There are a number of sources - I will still use (for the time being) the Daily editions of Le Monde, China Daily & the Washington Post - but only look at the in-depth pieces about issues. I'll still dip into France 24, Euronews, CGTN & CNN for in depth stories - but will make more use of the House of Commons Library, and regularly visit the websites of the British Parliament, the French Parliament, US Congress, the National People's Congress of China - and the Executive websites for those countries.

I'll still be making notes on the issues - what they are, and how different countries or International bodies are seeking to tackle them.

I'd welcome any comments or suggestions - you can post them here - or send to MorganBuckinghamLabour@mail.com (I might as well recycle the email account I used during the election - but just for Washminster responses.

Thankyou.

Citizenship - and the loss of Rights

Today many European Citizens - {that includes citizens of ALL current EU member states - including, for the next few days, citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland} will be sending a letter to key players within the institutions of the European Union. I am one of them - and the email I sent is reproduced below.

-------------

Dear EU colleagues and friends,

We write to you at our lowest point since the referendum of 2016. After over  three years of fighting to remain we unfortunately now know that we will be entering the transition period on 31st January 2020.

To be clear, this is not the will of the people. Indeed more votes were cast in favour of remain parties in the recent general election than were for the conservatives, especially so by our younger age groups of voters.

Only our voting system enabled a Johnson majority; this is something that we must work towards changing.

We do not want to leave the EU and we will continue to mount a sustained resistance to this for as long as it takes. Further, we will look to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity.

Having made those points, we write to you today to seek your patience, understanding and your guidance on the following points.

Please consider each in isolation, we are not asking for an either/or.

1) EU citizenship
Group members have asked if it would be possible to individually subscribe to an EU membership. Paying an annual fee much in the same way that the UK does now but with the individuals actually paying rather than the UK government paying. This subscription would be for ongoing freedom of movement and things like medical support etc.

We can see legally there may be some difficulties to overcome with this approach but we wanted to stimulate some thought and debate on this within the EU. Would the 27 be open to exploring this idea and possible scenarios with us?

2) EU Residency - does already exist but with time restrictions for the member country

We wanted to ask that for those UK nationals already working or living in the 27 countries that EU residency should be automatically applied to them in their country of residence on 1st February 2020. They are the people most immediately affected by the withdrawal and their loss would also impact negatively on many of the economies of our 27 EU friends were they to be forced to leave.

This second point does not unfortunately help those UK citizens in the UK that voted to remain but it will give certainty and relief to those genuinely at risk in the other 27 countries and remove the time restriction for applying for permanent residency for those already living in the 27 member states.

The application to UK nationals of the EU residency in such a dramatic and humanitarian way would also help apply pressure directly onto the Johnson government to reciprocate for EU citizens living in the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill does NOT allow for this and the amendment that would have provided for it was defeated this very week in the House of Commons.

The Johnson government demonstrated their worst qualities during that vote and during the vote on unaccompanied child migrants.

We believe that the EU 27 granting a general residency as desribed would also very much help to refocus on the EU citizens residency topic within the UK itself.

Safeguarding the EU citizens’ rights in the UK is also of paramount importance to us, we are without doubt in this together and we will remain so.

We believe the UK government would find it difficult to ignore or argue against such a proposal if a unilateral gesture had been already made by the remaining 27.

Our groups would lobby strongly for this to be applied to EU citizens also.

This email comes from our fledgling BRB EU Group and from the 48% Group and others.

We ask that you read it, consider our requests in a positive way and provide us with constructive feedback on how to work with you to enable progress.

To enable a clear line of communication we respectfully request that when you reply to the please also copy to following group admin email address.

BRB-EU@protonmail.com

Kind regards and thanks

​David​

Similar letters are being sent to -

ec-president-vdl@ec.europa.eu 

guy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eu

frans-timmermans-contact@ec.europa.eu

charles.goerens@europarl.europa.eu

I would encourage you, if you feel the same way, to send a similar email. Normally individuals are only stripped of their citizenship for a serious crime. At the end of this month there will be an unprecedented "bonfire of rights" - it will take away citizenship of the EU from British citizens - and diminish the rights of those who have chosen to come to Britain and settle here. 

For more on the rights of European Citizenship see - Rights of EU Citizens

A City Shining on a Hill?

There has been much to admire about the United States

- a revolution based on the principle of "no taxation without representation"
- a Constitution which enforces a strict separation of powers
- a Constitution, as amended, which includes rights that Citizens can enforce
- the assertion in their 'Declaration of Independence' that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
- fantastic technical innovation - including sending men to the moon; playing a leading role in the development of and use of computers and information technology
- its' "can do" attitudes
- some excellent academic institutions and think tanks.

I have loved visiting the United States, especially Washington DC and NoVa (Northern Virginia). I'm an American Football fan; and an addict of American politics.

John Winthrop, in a speech made as the Pilgrim Fathers approached their new land, is credited with applying this phrase taken from the Bible to the role that 'America' could play in the world. Presidents, including John F Kennedy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaXt7GE0aUo  and Ronald Reagan have made stirring speeches on this subject.

Yet, I write this post in great sadness. In recent years there has been coming out of certain quarters in the USA a poison which we in the UK and Europe need to protect ourselves from. It was prompted by the news that a gunman had opened fire in an area I deeply love, the Del Ray area of Alexandria, Virginia - injuring (as far as we know as I write this) a number of people, including the Majority Whip of the House of Representatives. It is reported that between 50 and 100 shots were fired from a set-automatic rifle (The Hill : Rep Mo Brooks [quoted in a BBC Report]).

The effort to weaken gun control has been part of the poison - each time I stay in Virginia, I hear of new changes to the law of that State which make it easier for anyone to get hold of some deadly lethal weapons - I've sat in gallery of the House of Representatives as very limited measures to improve safety were opposed and thrown out. THE NRA has been on the offensive - and despite the number and frequency of mass shootings, have gained the support of some Members of Congress, and of State legislatures - not only to reject sensible restrictions, but to push away restrictions that had existed.

We've seen the rise of a rabid populism - and fake news, culminating in the election of a man wholly unfitted to be the President of the United States. Last night I was appalled at the poor performance of the Attorney Officer of the United States - as he displayed a worrying inability to remember certain things as he testified before a Senate Committee.

We've seen a determined push to make it more difficult for certain parts of the American electorate to register to vote - for purely party political objectives.

We've seen the World Economy (as well as the American economy) taken to the brink by some Congressmen who threatened to let the USA default on its debts. We've seen the USA pull out of the Paris Climate Accord - and restart activities which threaten to further degrade the state of our planet.

There is a common theme. The push towards these developments has come from a particular part of the American political spectrum. A movement calling itself "conservative" has been behind a determined effort to push very radical ideas. Fifty-three years ago Barry Goldwater was their standard bearer - and he was given a beating at the Presidential Election. But the movement kept on planning, and spending, and removing Republican moderates. The election of Donald Trump was the, perhaps inevitable, result of their activities. Moderation was hunted down - some very black (political) arts were used to achieve the takeover of the Republican Party - and the country. Some of its fellow travellers were even overtaken by the monster they fed (Eric Cantor, John Boehner). - as Kennedy said in his inauguration speech - "those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

The damage to the American system is vividly described in the books of Norman Ornstein and Thomas E Mann ("The Broken Branch" 2006, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks") and many others.

But why does it threaten the UK and Europe? The same crazy ideology is being pushed over here. So called "conservative" ideas have gained a foothold in the British Conservative Party. While the Conservative Party has given public support to the continuation of the National Health Service for over sixty years - there are some now suggesting that the market based approach of US health insurance would be better (!?!?!?). Brexit has its strong supporters - and funders - amongst the American 'conservatives'. We've seen the advocacy of similar barriers to voter registration,

We need to look closely at the tactics they have used to push their ideas to such prominence and power in the USA. We also need to prepare our counter-offensive. Many in the US failed to take them seriously - we must not make the same mistake.

Art 50 Library

Article 50 may well be triggered in the coming days - after the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill has received the Royal Assent - and that can only happen when "ping-pong" is concluded between the two Houses of Parliament. It is going to an interested week ahead! 

The House of Commons website states - "The House of Commons will now consider these amendments made by the Lords - a period that is known as ping pong. Time has been set aside on Monday 13 and, if necessary, Tuesday 14 and Wednesday 15 March 2017 for the consideration of Lords amendments."This post links to some of the key documents about Article 50.

HL Constitution Committee - The invoking of Article 50
House of Commons Library Papers on Art 50 - Brexit reading list: Legal and Constitutional issues pp 5 - 7 (with excellent links to useful documents and articles)

The Exiting the EU Committee has published two reports to date -

The process for exiting the European Union and the Government’s negotiating objectives - available here.

and The Government’s negotiating objectives: the rights of UK and EU citizens - available here.

The EU Committee in the House of Lords has published a number of reports on specific issues - and the list, with links to download the reports (for free) can be accessed here.

Budget Documents

The speech that the Chancellor gave in the House of Commons is available here. Yesterday,s Hansard - with the debate which started immediately afterwards is available here. The debate will continue today, resume on Monday 14th and conclude on Tuesday 15th March.

Documents related to the Budget, published by HM Treasury are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2017-documents. These include

The Red Book - which includes the Budget Report and the Office of Budget Responsibility's Budget forecasts.

More details on the policies and impacts of budget measures are also available through the above link.

In summary, the Government makes the following claims about its' approach -

"As the UK begins the formal process of exiting the European Union, the Spring Budget puts economic stability first. Following a period of robust economic growth, record levels of employment and a falling deficit, it sets out further progress in restoring the public finances to health. Building on the Industrial Strategy, it goes further in tackling the UK’s productivity challenge.

The Budget sets out actions the government will take to:

* help young people from ordinary working families across the country get the skills they need to do the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future, vital for a competitive workforce

* give more children the chance to go to a good or outstanding school that sets them up to succeed

* support the social care system with substantial additional funding, so people get the care they deserve as they grow older, and support both local NHS plans and improvements to Accident and Emergency with new capital investment

* invest in cutting-edge technology and innovation, so Britain continues to be at the forefront of the global technology revolution

*continue to bring down the deficit so the UK gets back to living within its means, and can fund public services for the long-term through a fair and sustainable tax system

By investing in the future, the Budget helps make the most of the opportunities ahead by laying the foundations of a stronger, fairer, better Britain – a country that works for everyone.

The Spring Budget also marks the transition to a single fiscal event each year, an autumn Budget."

Analysis of the budget can be found at

The Guardian

Financial Times

Professor Michael-Gad, City University, London

How the EU ACTUALLY works

I've been a lecturer on EU Law for the last quarter of a century (I've also taught European Politics, been an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament,  and dealt with EU institutions as an assistant in the UK Parliament and in my own political work). There are a lot of misconceptions about what the EU does - and how it does it. It is that widespread lack of knowledge amongst British citizens that was the necessary foundation for the Brexit result. Much misinformation has been spread - and I'm glad to hear that Wikipedia has evaluated thre Daily Mail - and found it to be a wholly unreliable source.

So where does one go to find out accurate information?.

At an academic level - there are some excellent textbooks - these two are my personal favourites.






These can be expensive - and are, by nature, complex. There is a lot of FREE information available.

A free booklet from the European Parliament is well set out & VERY informative. It was produced in 2013, so information about the results of the 2014 election (which led to the current party makeup in the EP) are not included. It is available here.

There is a useful website at https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu_en

Key knowledge about the EU involves

- membership (currently 28 members) - in the media the EU (and its institutions, especially the Court) is often confused with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is part of the Council of Europe - a wholly distinct organisation with almost double the number of members.

- the key institutions. Each have their own role - and personnel. The European Commission is the Executive. Despite false assertions in certain parts of the media - it is not an all-powerful body. It may propose legislation - but the Council of Ministers and European Parliament must pass that legislation. Its members are nominated by the (elected) governments of the member states. Before appointment the European Parliament holds hearings, and individual commissioners regularly appear the Parliament. The Council of Ministers is made of government ministers from each member state.  (When Heads of Government/State meet - it is called the European Council, and together the democratically elected leaders of the 28 states set the agenda for the EU). The European Parliament is directly elected every five years. The Court of Justice of the EU is responsible for upholding the legal rules of the EU (interpreting and applying EU Law - and providing legal review of the acts of the institutions).

I subscribe to daily emails from 'Politico' (an American political-journalism company based in Arlington County, Virginia, that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally.)
Politico, European Edition
Brexit

Doing the Wrong Thing?

I've always been passionate about Parliament. It has been my main interest in research and teaching. I love to watch the debates, and particularly the activities in the Select Committees. I've fought two parliamentary elections as a candidate, and worked in the Palace of Westminster - both on a voluntary and (low) paid basis. The history of Parliament inspires me - and I maintain the highest regard for the institution and many of its members and staff - who work long hours, often doing work for which they get no thanks - and which poorly rewards skills that they have chosen to use in the service of others when they could have been much better rewarded elsewhere.

But I'm rather sad today. I fear that tonight will be one of the House of Common's low points. It has had its high points - it has stood up to tyrants; established rights that we should cherish; created institutions which have served the people well; - most of all it has been the scene of many significant victories in the march towards liberty for all.

Yet tonight - despite having had the principle of parliamentary sovereignty upheld only a few days ago in the Supreme Court - it will probably hand the Executive a blank cheque.

Don't underestimate the significance of the Second Reading of a bill. It is the point at which the House gives its approval in principle to a legislative measure that has been proposed to it. After ceding the agreement in principle, it can make amendments to the details - but the principle has been adopted.

We had hoped that before the House of Commons did that a White Paper would have been produced - so that the Members of the House could see where the Executive was going with the power the House was about to give it. Well - and this adds insult to injury - it will NOT be published until the House has voted to cede power to the Executive.

The Bill is short - it is the worst kind of enabling bill - this is what a blank cheque looks like in parliamentary language.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1     Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

(1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European 
Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

(2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European 
Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

2      Short title

This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 
2017.

Good legislation, when granting powers, should state any restrictions that Parliament thinks necessary, any requirements for reporting back or when parliament should be consulted when the power is used. There are none here.

And the first thing that the Government will do if it wins the vote on Second Reading is to move a programme motion which will restrict the time available for debate. [Such a motion requires notice - you can read it in today's Order Paper - https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmagenda/OP170201.pdf pages 6 to 7]

I hope I'm wrong. But within hours the House and its members will decide. Your member of Parliament owes a duty to you. Edmund Burke.

"I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for."

Some will say that the Referendum result gags MPs today. But declining a Second Reading to this bill - is NOT a rejection of that result. This bill, if passed, will cede the right to oversee our departure from the European Union from Parliament to the Executive. If you feel strongly about this - then contact your MP straight away. If you don't know who your MP is - then this LINKtakes you to a page that will help you find him or her.

The New United States

Washminster has been silent for a while - too much going on, too little time. But now it is back - to a very different world.

We've had Brexit at home (I am a Milton Keynes based UK (and for the moment EU) citizen) and now the transition begins from the Obama presidency to a very different kind of Presidency, that of Donald Trump. I campaigned in both the referendum and the US elections - and after my track record , I am considering volunteering for Marine Le Pen's campaign in France - in order that my curse can descend on that - and a good result is obtained.

Interesting Times lie ahead - and Washminster will be following, explaining & discussing what happens in the USA, the UK, France & then the next big Election - Germany.

Do send your comments and questions. The next twelves months will be interesting!!!

What happens now?

As ever, the House of Commons Library can be relied upon to provide impartial, well researched material on a topic of immediate public interest.




Materials are now available about the Referendum and the framework by which Brexit will be brought about.

The following are available by clicking the highlighted link


The Process of leaving the EU

The impact of an EU exit in key policy areas



Tax after the EU Referendum

Pensions after the EU Referendum

Financial Services after the Referendum

Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2012 - and how a General Election might be brought about

The EU Referendum Campaigns

I have to admit it - like many people, I'm really turned off by the way this referendum is being conducted. There is a relentless bombardment of the public by "information" (some of which is HIGHLY dubious) - endless "discussion" and attempts to look at the referendum from innovative angles.

I fear many people are now so switched off, that they won't vote. That would be a pity, because this is potentially one of the most important votes in recent British history. Its repercussions may be felt for decades. The consequences could be immense (yes there is some exaggeration - from both sides) but the result will leave a lasting impact (and that would be true even if there was a comfortable 'Remain' win).

The 1975 referendum did not end the debate once and for all, as was suggested at the time - and that had a large majority. A close result is likely to ensure that the losing side carries on the debate.

What sort of questions should people be asking in the next fortnight? [Unless it is too late - as it soon will be if you haven't registered yet; or, like me - you've already voted]

I suggest the following

* How CREDIBLE are the predictions? No one can foresee the future - the best anyone can do is to make predictions. What are those predictions based on? Are they blind faith (which I fear is the case for those who HOPE that Britain will enjoy exactly the same terms of trade as it currently enjoys); or are they based on a detailed analysis? What are the assumptions behind the predictions?

* Why did Britain join in the first place? (and what did it think it was joining?) There's been a lot of nonsense spouted about our expectations. We did NOT think we were merely joining a free trade area. In fact, we set up the European Free Trade Area as an ALTERNATIVE to membership of the EEC. When we did apply, some opponents proposed a North Atlantic Free Trade Area (then known by initials subsequently used for another project - NAFTA). Sadly, while many Brits thought this was a good idea, it fell embarrassingly flat in the USA. The 1957 Treaty of Rome (we announced we would apply to join in 1961) lists the objectives, the first being 

"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

An ever closer union was not slipped in later, while we weren't looking - it was there before we applied.  

Similarly, we knew that EEC Law (now EU Law) took precedence over conflicting national legislation - because the principle had been stated in the earliest caselaw of the European Court of Justice (see the leading case of Costa v ENEL (1964) 

"BY CONTRAST WITH ORDINARY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, THE EEC TREATY HAS CREATED ITS OWN LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH, ON THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY, BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND WHICH THEIR COURTS ARE BOUND TO APPLY . 

BY CREATING A COMMUNITY OF UNLIMITED DURATION, HAVING ITS OWN INSTITUTIONS, ITS OWN PERSONALITY, ITS OWN LEGAL CAPACITY AND CAPACITY OF REPRESENTATION ON THE INTERNATIONAL PLANE AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, REAL POWERS STEMMING FROM A LIMITATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OR A TRANSFER OF POWERS FROM THE STATES TO THE COMMUNITY, THE MEMBER STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND HAVE THUS CREATED A BODY OF LAW WHICH BINDS BOTH THEIR NATIONALS AND THEMSELVES . 

THE INTEGRATION INTO THE LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE OF PROVISIONS WHICH DERIVE FROM THE COMMUNITY AND MORE GENERALLY THE TERMS AND THE SPIRIT OF THE TREATY, MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATES, AS A COROLLARY, TO ACCORD PRECEDENCE TO A UNILATERAL AND SUBSEQUENT MEASURE OVER A LEGAL SYSTEM ACCEPTED BY THEM ON A BASIS OF RECIPROCITY . SUCH A MEASURE CANNOT THEREFORE BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT LEGAL SYSTEM . THE LAW STEMMING FROM THE TREATY, AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW, COULD NOT BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL NATURE, BE OVERRIDDEN BY DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS, HOWEVER FRAMED, WITHOUT BEING DEPRIVED OF ITS CHARACTER AS COMMUNITY LAW AND WITHOUT THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION . 

THE TRANSFER BY THE STATES FROM THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM TO THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE TREATY CARRIES WITH IT A PERMANENT LIMITATION OF THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS ."

There are some excellent histories available about the debate in the UK from 1950 to 1973. 

* What ideology lies behind the arguments? We tend in Britain to ignore the ideological framework behind political arguments. While both sides take support from across the political spectrum - there are in both camps a dominant ideological position.

The "Remain" camp does represent the mainstream range of ideologies represented in British political parties in the period from 1945 to date. There are differences in the extent of the role of the State - but most believe that the State should be involved in regulating the market, and limiting what Heath described as "the unacceptable face of capitalism"

A major driver within the "Leave" campaign is a belief, like Ronald Reagan's, that
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". Regulation, except in the most extreme situation, should not be used to grant protections to workers or consumers, the 'free market' should determine how the market operates. It is this which lies behind their crusade "to free us from the shackles of Europe." There are left wing supporters of Brexit - and they hope that the present protections will remain should we withdraw - but do the leading lights of the Leave campaign share their hope? The ultra-conservative momentum within the Republican Party, which has left Goldwater and Reagan far behind, is powerful within the Farage-IDS-Gove wing of the Leave campaign.


Just a few thoughts - I'd welcome any comments.