Britannia Radio

 

Lord Reese-Mogg wrote that "Britain will not be bound by Treaties to which the British have not given assent". 

 

I also question whether the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with our Common Law Constitution and also whether the deliberately muddled Treaty of Lisbon complies with the Vienna convention on the law of Treaties.  My concern was because of the muddled way the Treaty of Lisbon was set out.  (Now admitted by some that this was done quite deliberately so). So high was my concern that on the 20th Feb 2008 I wrote to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary General, United Nations, and also to the Vienna convention on the l;aw on Treaties.  I have not yet had a reply from either. I no longer expect one.

 

However, here is part of my letter to them, "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, Article 32, 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." End of quotes.

 

I believe that like Germany has done, the Treaty should be put before the highest Court in the Land (The new Supreme Court) to see if it is compatible with our Common Law Constitution and the Queen's Coronation Oath.  Plus, I also question whether the way the Treaty is drawn up, is it compatible with the high standards required in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6189918/Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard-does-the-EU-club-have-a-future.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6196784