I know I’m doing, lately, a lot of references and copy and paste job, I am usually quite original, also I think, very original, but this Brexit game requires also solid economic and juridicial reputations than my own pretty name to convince you we are being serious: the EU must be dismantled, so I do it, the copy and paste, without copying the integral document, but highlighting the points I find more enlightening: The EU acts totally outside the rule of law, the Commission does what it likes and only the Germans have some authority left. I had noticed that the Dublin Treaty though regularly signed is continuously, openly, broken and the “supervision” of the Commission doesn’t work according to the written laws, but according to what’s in the mind of Juncker in that very moment: instead of sanctioning the countries that break Dublin, they would like to sanction the ones that want it respected; the dutch minister for the EU economic affair, that “nasty nice guy” of Victor Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who looks strangely like the blond version of a schoolmate of mine, noticed that the Commission is not doing the job of supervising the countries that break the stability pact either: no, the Commission does what they like, Dublin, Maastricht, all the treaties are used like sorry the metaphor, toilette paper, the Commission wants other things, the immigration compact that stays nowhere in the pacts, invasion of kossovarians and turks, not without, but against the people’s will and without the unanimity that should be necessary, it is total arbitrium while they talk about the rule of law as if they knew what it is, which I doubt. It’s a third world system of bribes, abuses of power by regularly unelected guys applied to formerly rich Europe: they, the EU, is third world.
Now Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a couple of days before Brexit announces that also the European Court of Justice “rubber-stamps abuses and acts like the enforcer of the executive”, invades juridicial territories, it’s not backed by any Constitution, he calls it a Star Chamber, the Dutch and the French rejected the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty was signed by Gordon Brown in a different moment than the others not be recorded by television.
The only astonishing thing is when A.EP says he still doesn’t know whether to vote for Brexit or not. Let me think… do I want Democracy and the Rule of Law or not? I think, yes, I want them, then Brexit.
Extracts of Evans-Pritchard’s telegraph’s article:
“The UK Supreme Court is emerging as the chief line of resistance against EU hegemony.
The British judiciary has begun to draw its sword. For the first time since the European Court asserted supremacy and launched its long campaign of teleological conquest, our own judges are fighting back.
It is the first stirring of sovereign resistance against an imperial ECJ that acquired sweeping powers under the Lisbon Treaty, and has since levered its gains to claim jurisdiction over almost everything.
What has emerged is an EU supreme court that knows no restraint and has been captured by judicial activists – much like the US Supreme Court in the 1970s, but without two centuries of authority and a ratified constitution to back it up.
This is what the Brexit referendum ought to be about, for this thrusting ECJ is in elemental conflict with the supremacy of Parliament. The two cannot co-exist. One or the other must give.
It is the core issue that has been allowed to fester and should have been addressed when David Cameron went to Brussels in February to state Britain’s grievances. It was instead brushed under the carpet.
The explosive importance of Lisbon is not just that it enlarged the ECJ’s domain from commercial matters (pillar I), to broad areas of defence, foreign affairs, immigration, justice and home affairs, nor that this great leap forward was rammed through without a referenda – after the French and the Dutch had already rejected it in its original guise as the European Constitution.
Lisbon also made the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally-binding. As we have since discovered, that puts our entire commercial, social, and criminal system at the mercy of the ECJ.
Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty away from other EU leaders to avoid the TV cameras
The Rubicon was crossed in Åklagaren v Fransson, a VAT tax evasion case in non-euro Sweden. The dispute had nothing to do with the EU. The Charter should come into force only when a country is specifically applying EU law.
The ECJ muscled into the case on the grounds that since VAT stems from an EU directive, Sweden was therefore operating “within the scope of EU law”. This can mean anything, and that is the point. To general consternation, it ruled that Sweden had violated the double-jeopardy principle of Article 50 of the Charter.
Almost nothing is safe when faced with a court like this, neither the City of London, nor our tax policies or labour laws, nor even our fiscal and monetary self-government. The ECJ can strike down almost any law it wants, with no possibility of appeal.
The German constitutional court was so irritated by the Fransson case that it fired off a warning shot, effectively accusing the ECJ of acting “ultra vires” and beyond its powers.
This has not chastened Luxembourg. The court has ruled repeatedly and aggressively on the basis of the Charter, and Britain is not immune. It stopped the UK deporting an Afghan immigrant, and blocked the sharing of electronic data with the US anti-terror authorities – a ruling that caused chaos for Google, Facebook and others.
So much for the assurances of Britain’s Europe minister at the Biarritz summit in October 2000 – to me as it happened – that the Charter had no more legal standing than “the Beano”.
This was simply brushed aside by the ECJ in a key ruling in 2013. We learn too late that Protocol 30 is somehow just a “comfort clause”. The UK Justice Department has sheepishly admitted that it offers no shield at all and there is nothing they can do about it. “The Charter is now very much part of our law,” it says.
It has fallen to the UK Supreme Court – quietly emerging as a force to be reckoned with – to question whether the escalating claims of hegemony by the ECJ are legal, and what we can do to stop it.
“It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out,” said Tony Blair to the Commons in June 2007.
We lack the defences of Germany, where the top court refuses to accept the primacy of the ECJ and reserves the right to strike down any EU law that conflicts with Germany’s Basic Law.
My friend Hans-Martin Tillack – a German investigative journalist – was arrested by Belgian police at the behest of the Commission on false charges and held incommunicado for ten hours. They seized his computers, address books, telephone records and 1,000 pages of notes, compromising all his sources.
The International Federation of Journalists said it was a “flagrant violation” of press protection, and made it “virtually impossible” to carry out investigative reporting in Brussels. Yet the ECJ ruled against Mr Tillack, brushing aside 50 years of international case law. It said the Commission had done nothing wrong.
I cite the saga because there is an exact parallel in British history. In the Entick v Carrington case of 1765 the courts ruled that the seizure of papers from the house of a publisher – and his detention for four hours – was an exercise in “arbitrary power” and a breach of the Magna Carta. The Wilkes case was the foundation of British free speech.
It is too early to say whether the UK Supreme Court alone can protect the British people from the depredations of the ECJ. But before we vote for or against Brexit, let us at least be clear exactly who the enemy really is.”
I just don’t understand what do the people like Ambrose EP want more to say: it’s a mafia style mess, let’s get out. We are educated better than this; my mummy taught me better than that. The EU is thirdworldizing Europe.