SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHAT DOES SOVEREIGNTY MEAN? 1. Sovereignty has different aspects. Internally it involves the exclusive power to make supreme law, and in the United Kingdom this power is vested in the Crown in Parliament. Externally, sovereignty involves the power of a State to manage its own affairs. This power is not the same as legally unlimited freedom of action. States may enter into legal comitments which limit their freedom of action, without prejudicing their sovereignty. Indeed States regularly limit their freedome of action - for example by military alliances, trading agreements, membership of international organisations, etc. - and do so in pursuit of their national interests. In any event the increasing interdependence of modern states and the development of economic andother links cutting across national boundaries impose limitations of their own on national sovereignty. THE EFFECT OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNTIES. 2. Dealing first with the effects of membership in the sphere of foreign affairs, these are, in many respects, not dissimilar from those flowing from other international agreements into which we have entered, for example the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is true that in fields covered by the Community Treaties we should be required to co-ordinate our policy with that of the rest of the Communities, and that in some matters the conduct of international relations would be in the hands of the communities. (It must be remembered however that this Community system rests on the original consent, and ultimately on the continuing consent, of member States and hence of national Parliaments.) [If it were not so, the Communities would fall apart] No-one regards the existing Member States as being internationally less than sovereign States because of Community membership. 3. As for the domestic effects, Parliament would have to decide whether or not to approve the Treaty of Accession. If it did so, it would have to enact the legislation necessary to give effect to the Treaty It would thereby be endorsing the aims and principles of the Communities and would, inter alia, be agreeing to accept both existing and future Community Regulations as part of the law operating in the United Kingdom. But it would do so in the knowledge that the British represntatives would be playing a full and influential part in Community institutions. There would be a British judge in the European court (adjudicating on Community Law), and our elected represntatives would be in the European Parliament. Above all, a British Minister would be a member of the Council of Ministers which takes all the major decisions in the implementation of the Treaties. As the Prime Minister explained in Parliament on 24 May, after his discussions in Parish with the French President, the British and French Governments share the views that (while" there are certain administrative arrangements which are handled by the Commission and which are clearly defined under the Treaty of Rome,..... It is the Council of Ministers representing the member countries, who must take the decisions.) Where a country considers that an item is of major national interest to it, a decision (in the council) should be taken unanimously in other words, the member countries should not attempt to over-rule a single country on something which it considers to be of vital national interest." 4. Moreover, membership would not affect Parliament's power to legislate in matters not covered by Community law. In a few matters, the Communities have exclusive legislative competence and in any matter in which Community law operates in a member state it would take precedence over domestic law. Community law is however limited to the matters laid down by the Treaties, that is broadly, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour, services and capital; transport; monopolies and restricitive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal, steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law including criminal law, the law of contract and tort, the law of landlord and tenant, family law, social services (other than for migrant workers), nationality law and property and inheritance law. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 6. The purpose and effect of joining the Communities is not to dilute our national identityor traditional way of life. It has not done so in the case of the very individual and different countries which are already members of the Communities. Membership of the Communites as it has developed is rather a way of trying to find ways of reaching decisions and sharing functions on a Community basis in fields where the member nations can with advantage do so. It is also a way of influencing and benefiting from Communities which exercise increasing international authorityin the interest of their members. In this way membership is a means of strengthening the influence of a nation, not weakening it. 7. Moreover there is a further way in which membership of the Communities tends to add to the real power in the outside world of its members. For example, France or Germany is important to third countries not only because of her power in her own right but also because of her ability to influence the Communities. In the same way, Britain's real power - and the influence of her Government or other governments - will tend to increase from membership of the Communities. 8. The Community system is well endowed with checks and balances. Indeed given the fact that the sharing of certain functions with other states is inevitable and desirable, joining the Communities is a method of doing so which gives members effective and continuing democratic control over that process. Draft reply please W2 booth 8 June 1971 Dear Lothian I write in regard to a point which I regard as of considerable importance. I spoke to you about it at tea this afternoon. In the debate in the Lords on 19 January 1971 on Britain's entry into the EEC, Lord George Brown replying as much as anything, I think, to what Shinwell had said earlier, went out of his way, in no uncertain terms, to make the point that a decision by the U.K. to enter would not be irrevocable. He said that it was " ...not in fact true that once in you cannot get out......" and he called in de Gaule's action in 1965 when he withdrew from the Council of Ministers and other Community Institutions etc. I recollect that others speaking later in the debate reopened to the point, certainly were dissented and indeed you yourself (Col 474) when you wound up for the Government applauded his speech and hoped it would be widely read both in this country and by the Six. The supposition therefore was that you also agreed with the particular point. However I noted that on Monday of this week 7th January in Panorama (B.B.C.1) Alec Douglas-Home had this point put specifically to him in a question by Robin Day and he replied that we could not get out. I sensed perhaps that he purposely said this rather quietly, obviously it would be difficult for a Foreign Secretary to do otherwise when we are trying to get in, but I really do think that it would not be left there, if at all possible. As I understand it, there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome to bring it to an end, but neither is anything said about individual members coming out, so in theory I deduce that that course would be possible. I appreciate that it is essentially a psychological point as in practice it might prove very difficult to come out particularly as Alec went on and one could hardly visualise it happening except in an extreme situation, but surely there would exist just that loophole? The anti-marketeers make great play of this irrevocability and I believe they use the point with some success to persuade those who are lukewarm about entry, or sitting on the fence. Can this not be countered by some suitable formula of words? I would be most grateful if you could let me now what is officially felt. I should mention that I raise this point in view of a correspondence in local press in North local to which I have felt constrained to contribute; it is however of far more than local significance. You will I hope have gathered that I am very much in favour of our entry Yours sincerely Rochdale. Mr Adams, (European Communities Information Unit E 120) FACTSHEET ON SOVEREIGNTY 1. I attach a draft of the Factsheet on Sovereignty which incorporates amendments agreed during the meeting of the Sopwith Committee yesterday afternoon. Paragraph 7 of the draft, however, only reached me after that meeting had ended and was therefore not considered by the Sopwith Committee: It does however raise no legal issue and is primarily a political paragraph. 2. I am afraid that I cannot say the Sopwith Committee approved the draft. They did not like it and would not have drafted a draft Factsheet of sovereignty in anything like the terms of the draft. In view of time factor, however, there was no prospect of embarking on the preparation of a legally more acceptable draft. The general view of the Sopwith Committee was that from a legal point of view the present draft could well give rise to trouble, particularly in the form of answering questions based upon points made, or rather glossed over, in the Factsheet. However, they accepted that this is primarily a policital exercise and were prepared to treat it as such. I feel the same way about this paper as did the rest of the Sopwith Committee. 3. However, we did not think that the propositions in it are actually wrong from the legal point of view and are therefore prepared for it to be submitted to the Law Officers. there is no guarantee that the Law Officers will be willing to clear this draft quickly, or indeed that they will agree to issuing it at all. If they do have reservations about the issue of such a Factsheet, they will doubtless wish to take it up from Ministerail colleague direct. 4. It may be that I have to go to a meeting before I can sign this minute or finally check this draft. I hope you will excuse this, in the interests of speed. I attach the original amended draft so that if anything has gone wrong you can see where. A.D.WATTS Legal Advisor. 8 June 1971 ECONOMIST Cutting dated 24 april 1971 EEC The issue of sovereignty: creating the next Leviathan? Ardent pro-Europeans have something in common with the seventeeth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. They can advocate an abdication of sovereignty - in their case national rather than personal- on perfectly selfish grounds. European law ill bring its own reward; without it the life of the British economy will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. But this perhaps overinflates the issue of sovereignty. There is also the line of argument taken in the constitutional argument taken in the constituional white paper* of 1967, which did its best to show that Britain would not actually be handing over sovereignty at all. In the present Government, Mr Geoffrey Rippon, for one, has treated the constitutional issue with something close to scorn. That is one way of coping with a question that is at least partly semantic. But it is more convincing to anticipate those like Mr Enoch Powell who will raise the boy of an impotent Parliament as the EEC negotiations proceed. Five constitutional questions need answers. 1. By Article 240 of the Treaty of Rome, the European Community was created for an indefinite duration: what happens if Britain, once in, wants to get out? This is a peculiarly groundless as well as fainthearted apprehension. The crude answer is that Britain is no less an independent power in the common market than out. And so, in the unlikely event of wanting to leave, could do so. As is often pointed out, Britain's much-prized sovereignty is limited anyway by geographical situations, mutual defence pacts, dependence on trade, international debt. A repeal clause is whatever treaty bound Britain to Europe, would neither add to nor subtract from its force. But the argument is not :- or should not be - just about power. It is about authority of legitimacy; and this is where the constitutionalists come in. 2. In Britain according to constitutional theory embalmed by Dicey in *Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom. Membership of the Economic Communities HMSO The nineteenth century, no Parliament can bind its successor. So how can Britain commit itself to observe future community decisions? There is a crude answer to this too. No nation can bind future generations inviolably. Other countries than Britain may revoke previous decisions by rewriting their constitutions (with or without a revolution) rather than merely, as Britain does, by passing another statute. Every European government can only hope that its successors will abide by the Treaty of Rome. Britain lacks not so much a written constitution - there is more famous than correct; rights are enshrined in a multitude of written statues going back to the Bill of Rights and beyond, to the much repealeld Magna Carta. What Britain lacks is an effective check on its legislature. There is no judicial review of legislation. On joining the EEC, this will be a help as well as a hindrance. Britain will be free of the sort of legal tangles from which the Germans and Italians have suffered. But this does leave one question uncomfortably wide open. 3. Some community law is intended to have direct effect within member states. What happens when this conflicts with British law? To be enforceable in British courts, a treaty making Britain a member of the EEC must be put through Parliament. This means Britain would have to pass a monster statute embodying existing community law more or less. The fear that these laws, drawn up for countries with a Roman law tradition, will be unsuited to a common law country such as England, is a bogy; Parliament will manage to draw up reconciliable laws just as it now makes laws for the two different systems of Scottish and English law. What happens then? Under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, the principal law-making instruments of the Commission are regulations (intended to take effect automatically as law in member states) and directives (addressed to the governments which are then required to incorporate them into their internal law). These, according to the white paper, would "like ordinary delegated legislation" derive their force from the original statute joining Britain to the Six. It is possible to pretend that regulations are like ordinary delegated legislation provided that they post-date any domestic British law with which they may conflict. The white paper rather undermines this by suggesting that regulations, as well as directives, should be turned into British statute law to make everything quite clear. If this happened, either Parliament would be setting itself as a rubber stamp to each and every new community regulation; or if it wanted to keep its authority over every Brussels regulation, Britain's intentions to abide by community decisions expressed in the treaty making it a member, would have a hollow ring. 4. This really comes down to a simple question : Who is going to enforce community law? The answer is of course the British courts. This would be plain sailing where each new community rule is enacted in turn into British statute law; it might be less plain sailing as regards regulations unless the original statute made it sufficiently clear in advance that these have to count as law. British courts will have to accustom themselves to a rather more interpretive role since community regulations are couched in more general terms than British statute law. British courts will also have to accept the relevance of more foreign judgements, which is being made to happen to an increasing extent anyway. The water gets choppy when it comes to regulations with which subsequent parliamentary statutes conflict. On Dicey's analysis, Parliaments cannot prevent its successor from passing such laws. According to the white paper, Parliament would have to refrain from doing so - an unsatisfactory answer if there ever was one. Of course the constitutional image of an unfetterd Parliament passing statutes at will or whim has long since been laughable, (Received stamp obscures print) There is another, more ambitious and less realistic answer. A number of eminent lawyers maintain that Parliament can in fact limit its legislative authority. Even Dicey believed that it could transfer its sovereignty to some other body. The example most commonly adduced is the 1931 Statutue of Westminster, destroying Parliament's right to legislate for Commonwealth countries without their consent. It is argued that Parliament is also constrained by the Act of Union with Scotland. This would theoretically mean that the courts could rule on whether a British law is valid. But as things stand it is too much to expect a cautious British judiciary to reject new acts of Parliament without Government prompting. Parliament would first have to spell out in a bill that it would be a defence to an action brought under British law that it was inconsistent with a community regulation. The consequence of this would be that the courts would not uphold British statutes passed in contravention of European regulations. It is important that British courts are not in opposition to, but help tointerpret and develop community law. They would not be unaided in this. By far the greatest number of actions brought before the European court are not under Articles 169 and 170 ( against member states for failing to fulfil their obligations) or under Article 173 and 175 (against the commission itself) but under Article 177, under which the European court gives rulings on the interpretation of community law. It does not enforce its interpretation; when the Germans imposed a compensatory turnover tax and the European court indicated that it was contrary to Article 95, the ball was back in the German courts. But it has been under Article 177 that the lines of European law have been drawn out. This makes the European court sound like little more than a consultancy; but then "interpretation" of legal systems, rather than a new set of probably weak, community courts, is the best way for Eurolaw to grow. 5. If other institutions can pass laws for Britain and the courts will uphold them what sovereignty is left to Parliament? Put another way, how wide can community law range, and who makes it? At present EEC law covers economic and finance ; this gives a wider range than these dry terms imply, and - unanimously - member countries could decide to broaden it still further. Regulations have been made in the fields of restrictive practices ad monopoly, movement of workers, social security of migrant workers, agriculture, transport - and there are similar rules covering the coal, steel and nuclear energy industries. If non-tariff barriers are not to spring up where tariff barriers have been knocked down, a good deal of harmonisation of company law, for example, has to take place, just as it was necessary to harmonise some of the laws of Scotland and England. The 1967 white paper soothinly pointed out that there would be no effect on English and Scottish criminal law. The sanctions imposed under community law are of a civil rather than criminal character - which means money rather than prison. The white paper also concerned to point out both the safeguards in the framing of community law and the new freedom it would open up to the ordinary citizen. But those who drafted the white paper were so concerned to anticipate critics, that they suffered from a failure of imagination. It is one thing to point out that most regulations have to be passed unanimously or at worst by a qualified (which means large) majority of the council of ministers, or to show how it will be open to an ordinary citizen to challenge say, a tax or customs demand on the ground, that it conflicts with community law. It is another to show how Britain will actually be part of the law-making and enforcing business. The European parliament gets scant treatment perhaps, until Article 137 is put into effect and it is directly elected, that is all it is worth, but it might also have been worth soothing parliamentarians by pointing out that about 5 percent of MP's are likely to find their way to Strasbourg, and could form a bridge with Westminster. The EEC will conform to Mr Heath's recent picture of a united Europe as one in which governments "form the habit of working together". This pragmatic view of the EEC has the advantage of deflating the constitutional issue, since in British constitutional theory the government is constrained by Parliament. But if Europe becomes federalist or supranational or "interpenetrated" , Mr Powell's ilk might then argue that the British nation had been led into it blindfold. It is better that the constitutional argument should look ahead to a firmer European social contract and conquer straight away the wilder nightmares of an uncontrolled European Leviathan. Only governments will ever create the European Leviathan: it will not appear unasked. 111 Written Answers 12 May 1971 show to what extent housing costs per person in Great Britain would have to rise to match the countries of the Six and whether he will consider doing this in order to facilitate Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. Mr Channon: I do not find it possible to make reliable comparisons of total expenditure on housing between Britain and the E.E.C. countries, or to draw from any such comparison any valid conclusions. 52. Mr Wolrig-Gordon asked the Secretary of state for the Environment if he will give a general direction to British Railways to improve methods of preventing travel on trains without a ticket. Mr Peyton: No. 36. Mr Ironmonger asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for a revised order of Questions to be printed so as to indicate the dtes on or by which Questions must be tabled when the period covered by the revised order is interrupted by days of recess. Mr Whitelaw: The Table Office produces before each recess, for the guidance of hon Members, a duplicated chart showing when notice may first be given of Questions for oral answer during the first two weeks after a recess. This might well meet my hon. Friend's point. 40. Mr Pardoe asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied that all the disqualifications for membership of the House of Commons are still necessary; and what steps he proposes to take to limit disqualifications. Mr Whitelaw: There are no proposals for changes at the present time, but if the hon. Member has any particular category of disqualification in mind, perhaps he will let me know. The list of disqualifications is kept under regular review. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will arrange to visit his counterpart in the Canadian Parliament to discuss matters connected with exchange visits of Members of the two Parliaments. Mr Whitelaw: I have no such plans at present. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the council whether he is aware that Members of the Canadian Parliament are to receive a 50 per cent increase in their existing salaries, bringing these up to $18,000 per annum: and that their existing tax-free expenses allowance is to be raised by 33 per cent, to $8,000 per annum: and whether he will obtain from the Canadian Government details of how these amounts are paid and on what basis and submit the details to the Boyle Committee. Mr Whitelaw: I would refer the hon.Member to the written reply I gave him on 15th January. (Vol. 809 c 138-9) Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council why the Catering Manager is paid £3,600 per annum as against a Member of Parliament's £3,250: what expenses the Manager is expected to meet out of this salary: whether he receives free meals: and whether he has to pay his secretary's salary out of this amount. Mr Whitelaw: The salary of the Catering Manager is fixed by the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, in the light of salaries paid in the trade for posts of similar responsibility. The Manager has to pay his normal living expenses out of his salary. He is entitled to free meals and he does not pay his secretary's salary. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council to what extent before a decision is taken in the Council of Ministers of the Community, it is open to Parliaments of member States, including Great Britain, not only to debate such issues, but to refuse to agree to or implement any decisions arrived at by the Council of Ministers of the Community. Mr Whitelaw: If we accede to the Treaty of Rome, it will be open to Parliament, as it is to Parliaments of other member States to debate, before their enactment, those Community instruments submitted by the Commission of the E.E.C to the Council of Ministers for approval. As members of the E.E.C we wouldbe represented in the Council and party to its processes of decision-making on Community legislation. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of his official engagements for Saturday 5th June 1971. Mr Whitelaw: It is not practice to do so. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council why the investigation into the administration of the Refreshments Department's administration is not yet complete: what recommendations have already been made for the improvement of the service and its efficiency: and whether Members may make written or oral statements to assist in this investigation. Dr Bennett: I have been asked to reply. The investigation concerns many matters of considerable detail and this will require time. A number of recommendations have so far been made, and approved by the Sub-Committee , relating to the control of supplies and the checking of stores. The Sub-Committee will certainly consider suggestions for the improvement of the efficiency of the service to hon.Members. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Lord President of the Council why he has not appointed the members of the Boyle Committee: when he expects to make these appointments: when he expects the Committee to hold its first meeting: how often it will meet: and whether he will make a statement. Mr Whitelaw: I would refer the hon.Member to my reply to him on 21st April 1971. (C403) It will be for the Review Body to decide on the timing of its meetings. 53. Mr Alexander Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotlandhow many autistic children are in mental hospitals in Scotland: and in which hospitals. Mr Gordon Campbell: The normal hospital statistics do not show the number of children in this complex diagnostic category, but a special enquiry is at present being carried out and I shall send details to the hon.Member as soon as possible. 54. Mr Alexander Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many autistic children are being educated in day schools in Scotland. Mr Gordon Campbell: I am asking the education authority to provide the hon.Member with up-to-date information. Mr Alexander Wilson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many autistic children in Scotland are in special units of education. Mr Gordon Campbell: The education authorities have reported to me that in January there were 14 autistic children receiving special education. It will however be appreciated that many children who are classifed under other handicaps also exhibit autistic symptoms. High Seas Salmon Fishing. Lieut-Colonel Colin Mitchell asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the British delegates will take at the UNCLASSIFIED UK Delegation to the European Communities 52 Ave des Arts 1040 Brussels 27 May 1971 S.W.Fremantle Esq Department of Trade and Industry 1 Victoria Street London SW1 Dear Sydney IMPLEMENTING EEC DIRECTIVES Thank you for your letter of 2 May 2. I have discussed this with a number of people here and with Ian Sinclair (Legal Counseller FCO) and we all agree that it is hard to answer your questions in very precise terms. Directives as you know, bind member States as to the result to be achieved, while leaving it to national authorities to determine how this is to be done. In practice statutory measures (legislation or subordinate legislation) are often used, although administrative measures may well be sufficient in certain cases. The type of sanctions varies from case to case: but I am told that civil sanctions are most often considered sufficient. 3. Since the objective of the Directives with which you and I are concerned is generally to ensure the free circulation of goods among the member States, exports to third countries are as a rule specifically exempted from the application of the directives. 4. I would have thought it best to deal with your question on "control" by reference to the motor vehicle type approval directives. As you know, these provide that member States may not prohibit the marketing of vehicles certified by another member state as confirming with the Community standard: except that sales may be suspended for up to six months where there is a demonstrable risk to safety. This is, of course, a question of type approval rather than individual certification. There have so far been no directives in the industrial field requiring compulsory certification of every production model. 5. Individual certification is the general rule in the agricultural field, where member States are called on, in principle, to recognise one another's systems of animal and plant health certification: but they are allowed considerable latitude to carry out additional checks on or after importation, essentially to take account of the possibility that disease may have been contracted in transit. I do not think, though, that Verdiani would regard this as creating a precedent to be followed for industrial products. Yours sincerely Charles Cruickshank. cc. I.M.Sinclair Esq. FCO I.T.Steven Esq EID FCO Written Answers 27 May 1971 fundamental problems will arise over transitional periods. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how man letters of cyclostyle format he sent to the hon. Member of West Ham North with his communication of 10 May; to what extent these were in reply to communications sent to him in favour or and against Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community: and in what numbers in each instance. Mr Rippon: I wrote to the hon Member on 10th May enclosing replies to the identical unstamped postcards, over 300 in number, which he sent me under cover of a letter dated 3rd May. The postcards which bore no indication either of authorship or of publishers, made three points about the effect of British membership of the European Economic Community and asked the Member of Parliament addressed to vote against British entry. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates in March and April he replied to the 200 to 250 written communications from members of the public about Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community: and what was the nature of these replies. Mr Rippon: the letters from the public referred to by the hon Member were received at various dates throughout the period in question and covered a wide range of questions and statements about our negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community. Some congratulating Her Majesty's Government on their conduct of the negotiations, were given a short reply thanking the writer for his sentiments. Others, seeking information or criticising the negotiations, were given more detailed answers. All were answered. Mr Powell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what total sum he estimates will be expended in the current financial year out of his Vote for all purposes of informing the British public on the subject of the European Economic Community. Mr Rippon: It is not possible to estimate how much time will be spent in the current financial year by members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in answering inquiries from the public on the negotiations, or in drafting ministerial speeches and statements on the British application for membership of the European Economic Community. The production and distribution of the series of Factsheets on Britain and the Common Market is carried out on the direct sponsorship of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but their cost is borne on the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office Votes. The entire operation, which was mounted to meet the demand for factual information, was originally planned to cost about £45,000. The heavy public demand for the Factsheets will involve extra costs. The latest estimate of the total cost based on the current level of demand is £62,000. Mr Deakins asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his recent agreement with the European Economic Community will safeguard the interests of Commonwealth cane sugar producers after 1974, in the event of priority being given to sugar beet production within an enlarged European Economic Community. Mr Rippon: I am confident that the sugar policy of the enlarged Community will be determined in accordance with the recent proposal by the Communities to safeguard the interests of the developing sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that the instrument of accession, if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community, will enable the British House of Commons to pray for the annulment of orders made by the Council of Ministers. Mr Rippon: If we join the European Economic Community, the powers of Parliament in relation to acts of the Council of Ministers will be exercised in the light of the provisions of Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome. Mr Deakins asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 26th May 1971 La. Mr Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will ensure that the instrument of accession, if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community, will enable the British House of Commons to pray for the annulment of orders made by the Council of Minsters. NO.39W MR GEOFFREY RIPPON If we join the European Economic Community, the powers of Parliament, in relation to acts of the Council of Ministers will be exercised in the light of the provisions of Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome. Mr Ford Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit a draft reply for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to use in answering a Question from Mr Arthur Lewis which asks if he will ensure that the instrument of accession, if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community, will enable the British House of Commons to pray for the anulment of orders made by the Council of Ministers. 2. The Question is for oral answer on 26 May but will not be reached and no notes for supplementaries are required. 3. The Question in that it refers to orders of the Council of Ministers is vaguely expressed. If it referred to regulations the answers could be no. But Parliament could certainly pray against a directive or decision and, though probably ineffectually, it could attempt to resolve against a regulation. It is also suspected that in using the term "instrument of accessions", Mr Lewis intends not the Treaty of Accession (which would have to be negotiated with other States) but legislation giving effect to membership. The draft answer has been cleared with the Legal Advisers. A.Brind European Integration Department 26 May 1971 copied to Mr Watts Written Answers 24 May 1971 Mr Deakins asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has negotiated safeguards to prevent any expansion of sugar beet production in an enlarged European Economic Community which would adversely affect the interests of commonwealth cane sugar producers after 1974. Mr Rippon: Levels of sugar beet production in an enlarged Community will be governed by the Community's regulations, as they are in the present Community. The relevant provisions are reviewed annually and it would be reasonable to expect the review to take account of the Community's assurances on sugar from developing Commonwealth countries. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the official luncheon held by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Brussels on 11th May for the Foreign Ministries of the Six and what was the purpose of the function. Mr Rippon: The cost of the luncheon was £194.59. It provided an opportunity for valuableinformal discussions between the United Kingdom negotiators and their counterparts from the Six. Mr Rippon: I made no public statement on 11th May but as is customary in the course of the day, I gave two briefings to journalists which covered developments during the day in the discussions on sugar. The full texts of my statements in the negotiating conference are of course confidential, but on 17th May on my return from Brussels and Reykjavik, I reported fully to the House on the previous week's negotiating meetings with the European Economic Comunity (Vol 817 c 882-6) Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT - full and detailed information showing to what extent the public proposals of the Ministers of the European Economic Community in Brussels on 11th May concerning Commonwealth sugar differed from those made by the Commission in November 1970. Mr Rippon: No. Proposals made by the Commission were to the Council of Ministers of the Community; they are confidential as are the details of the proposals put to Her Majesty's Government by the Community in the negotiating conference. The nature of the Community's proposals on Commonwealth sugar and Her Majesty's Government's reaction to them were dealt with in my statement to the House on 17th May (Vol 817 c 887-6) Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that confidential information regarding the Brussel's negotiations is given to the Press, radion and television by representatives of Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will reconsider his metods of informing Parliament about these talks in the light of these leeks. Mr Rippon: Arrangements for briefing Press, radio and television correspondents during the Ministerial negotiating meetings with the European Economic Community follow standard procedure.I am not aware of any leaks attributable to representatives of Her Majesty's Government. I see no reason to vary my practiceof making a statement to the House as I did on 17th May, as soon as it is possible after each Ministerial negotiating meeting - VOL 817 c 882-6) Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the event of Parliament approving the instruments of accession to the Treaties of the Communities, he will propose in the accompanying legislation that the House of Commons should be able to renounce membership on behalf of the United Kingdom at any future date. Mr Rippon : No 24th May 1971 La. Mr Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) : to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether, in the event of Parliament approving the instruments of accession to the Treaties of the Communities, he will propose in the accompanying legislation that the House of Commons should be able to renounce membership on behalf of the United Kingdom at any future date. NO. 56W MR GEOFFREY RIPPON. No, sir. Mr Ford Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit a draft reply for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to use in answering a Question from Mr Arthur Lewis which asks wheterh, in the event of Parliament approving the instruments of accession to the Treaties of the Communities, he will propose in the accompanying legislation that the House of Commons should be able to renounce membership on behalf of the United Kingdom at any future date. 2. The Question is for oral answer on 24th May, but will not be taken orally and no notes for supplementaries are required. 3. It would be possible:- i. to give an answer viewing Articles 240, 208 and 97 of, respectively, the EEC, Euratom and ECSC Treaties in the light of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law; or ii. to explain that, in the final analysis, no additional legislation would be necessary to permit Parliament voting in favour of renouncing membership of the Communities (formally, the actual renunciation of membership is not a matter for Parliament) 4. However, I think it is clear that a measure of the kind proposed by Mr Lewis is not contemplated, and that there is no reason why we should not say so. A H BRIND 21 May 1971 21st May 1971 I attach for the purpose of discussion a first draft of a reply to Mr Elystan Morgan's Parliamentary question on accession to the EEC. I am copying this letter and the enclosure to Arthur Watts and Sir Charles Sopwith. M. de Winton, Esq. Mr Elystan Morgan (Cardigan) To ask Mr Attorney General if he will make a statement concerning the power of Parliament to repeal at a subsequent date any decision which was made by way of resolution or legislation directed to affecting the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. (For Written Answer - 25th May 1971 Draft Answer There are no present constitutional restrictions on the power of Parliament to undo its own actions, but such a step would not consonant with the international obligations which the United kingdom would have issued. NOTE Mr Elystan Morgan is Labour Member for Cardigan It is universally agredd that Parliament would have at least according to present constitutional doctrine, power to repeal any legislation passed to give effect to United Kingdom accession to the European Economic Community (See Lord Chancellor Gardiner Offical Report (Lords) 1967 vol. 282 no.148 cols 1202-3) Lord Chancellor Dilhorne Offical Report (Lords) 1962 vol 243, no 115, cols 421-422.) In the light of the development of Community jurisprudence and the possible effect of the absorbtion of corpus of Community law into our own law, the possibility of this constitutional doctrine being eroded in the course of time following United Kingdom accession to the European Economic Community cannot however be discounted. The answer follows the line adopted by successive Lord chancellors in debate in the house of Lords, that, since repeal of the legislation implementing the Treaties would put the United Kingdom in breach of here Treaty obligations, nothing is to be gained from speculating on the theoretical powers of Parliament; It would be contrary to a moral obligation to refrain from acts which are inconsistent with the international obligations of this country. Foreign and Commonwealth Office London S.W.1 27 April 1971 K M H Newman Esq Lord Chancellor's Office House of Lords London SW1 Dear Karl SOVEREIGNTY IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY Many thanks for your letter of 23 april about the planned factsheet on Sovereignty and the Community announced by Mr Rippon in reply to a question by Mr Elystan Morgan on 22 april. I had not myself been aware that a specific factsheet on Sovereignty was in the wind, althought I knew generally that a number of factsheets were in the process of publication. I have now caused enquiries to be made and it appears that the proposed factsheet on sovereignty, which would be prepared in the first instances by the COI, is due to be published in about ten weeks time. I am also informed that, since the programme for the issue of this factsheet is not unalterable, we may be able to delay the publication of the factsheet on sovereignty if the views of the Law Officers are not by then available. In any event our European Communities Information Unit have promised to let me see the first draft of the factsheet and I will ensure that you, and the other receipents of this letter, see it at that stage. I am copying this letter to Mike de Winton and also to sir Charles Sopwith. Yours ever I M Sinclair Legal Advisers. Mr Sinclair SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EEC 1. The answer to the question by Mr Morgan was prepared by ECIU who will be responsible for the first draft of the factsheet on sovereignty and will consult you, the Sopwith Committee, andthe Lord Chancellor's Office about it. This is one of a series of factsheets and is due to be prepared in about 12 weeks time although, since the programme for the issues of these publications is not unalterable, we can delay its publication if we do not have by then the Law Officers' opinion. 2. I am returning Mr Newman's letter to you as agreed. I.T. steven European Integration Department. Lord Chancellor's Office House of Lords London SW1 2rd April 1971 Dear Ian Sovereignty in the European Economic Community I see that in written answer to the question by Mr Elystan Morgan (House of Commons Official Report, 22nd april 1971, Col.458) the Chancellor of the Duchy announced that a factsheet on Sovereignty and the Community is planned. We did not know about this and, nor do I understand, did the Law Officers, and in view of the complex and delicate problems to which the question of sovereignty gives rise, I am not altogether happy about a commitment to publish a survey in a simplified form. We shall now need to bear this in mind in connection with the matter placed before the Law Officers. I am copying this letter to Michael de Winton and sir Charles Sopwith. Yours ever Karl K M Newman. to: I.M.Sinclair Esq. May 1971 G.F.Hillier Esq. British Embassy Brussels CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT THE TREATIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. 1. Will you please refer to your letter of 19 November 1970 enclosing a statement of the measures taken by Belgium to accede to the EEC and Euratom. 2. Your letter enclosed the Belgian law effecting accession to the EEC and Euratom, and I would be most grateful if you cojuld now obtain for us fairly urgently the equivalent law for the ECSC (ie between 18 April 1951 and 1 January 1952), This is required by the Law Officers for a study of the steps taken by each of the Six to give effect totheir accession to each Community. I.T.Steven European Integration Department. Received in Registry No 37 26 May 1971 Mr Bried Mr Statham You will wish to see the attached note by Mr. Watts on the outcome of the appeal in the case of Blackhill v Attorney General. The judgement given by the Master of the Rolls in bound to be taken into account in the opinion of the Attorney General upon the supremacy of Community Law . The commentary on sovereignty will also be useful. T. Lewin 13/5 Sir Vincent Evans (Legal Advisers K 172) BLACKBURN V ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. The appeal of this case was heard today. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Mr Blackburn had indicated during the hearing that he did not intend to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords. 2. The leading judgement was given by the Master of the Rolls. After briefly introducing the history of the case, he went on to say that Mr. Blackburn was right, so far as he could judge, in saying that if the UK were to go into the Common Market, the signature of the Treaty would commit it irreversibly to the joinder of the market, and that furthermore, in some degree the sovereignty of these islands would be shared with others. Mr Blackburn referred to COSTA V ENEL. and to the fact that many Regulations would become automatically binding in the UK and that our courts would ave to follow the decisions of the European Court. 3. But (The Master of the Rolls continued) this was all a matter of negotiation at the moment. Even if the Treaty were signed our courts would take no notice of it until it was enacted by the laws of this country: this was so well established a proposition that it needed no authority, and the Master of the Rolls referred only to Rustomjee v The Queen. Mr Blackburn had argued that the Treaty of Rome was in a category by itself because it diminished the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. However, in the view of the Master of the Rolls, the principle he had stated applied equally to all treaties. The treaty making power vests in the Crown acting on the advice of Minsters; prerogative acts of this kind cannot be questioned in the courts. The Master of the Rolls then turned to the question whether Parliament, in approving legislation for participation in a permanent treaty, could enact an irreversible statute. In his views, all laws were repealable. But this was legal theory; that one Parliament cannot bind its successors and that any Parliament can repeal a previous statute. But legal theory does not always march alongside political reality. He did not believe that anybody would say that Parliament would repeal the Statute of Westminster or Independence Acts for our former colonies. In any case, whatever might be the theory of Parliament's power to reverse itself, the matter could only be tested when the time came, i.e. if and when Parliament should seek to reverse the act allowing for our entry into the Common Market. Sovereignty was a political fact for which no purely legal authority could be constituted. While Mr Blackburn was right in asserting that one Parliament cannot bind another and that any Parliament has the power to repeal previous statutes, this court would wait until time came. Our courts will not impugn the treaty making power of the Crown, and so far as Parliament enacts legislation the courts will deal with it at the time that legislation comes before the courts. 4. Salmon and Stamp, L. JJ., delivered short concurring judgements, the general drift of which was that it was for the Crown to make treaties and for Parliament to enact the necessary legislation; the role of the courts were limited to applying and construing the legislation when once passed. A.D.WattsLegal Advisers W 44/4 Copy to Mr Sinclair, Mr Steven. 10 May 1971 Blackburn v Attorney General Law report May 10 1971 Court of Appeal. Treaty of Rome declarations refused. Before Lord Denning, Maste of the Rolls , Lord Justice Salmon, Lord Justice Stamp. The court with no ....................................................subject grant declaration which impign the Crown's perogative to enter into the Treaty of Rome, even though it may commit the executive irreversibly to joining the Common Market and mean some sharing of the sovereignty of these islands with others. The court's function is to interpret political decisions when they have been embodied in Acts of Parliament: and though the present accepted legal theory is that no Parliament can bind its successors, political treaties may not always necessarily acccord with that legal theory. Their Lordships so stated in dismissing an appeal by Mr Raymond Blackburn of Cotney Road, Chiswick. From the order of Mr Justice Eveleigh affirming the Master Jacob and striking out two statements of claim in proposed actions for declarations against the Attorney General representing Her Majestys Government on the ground in Order 18, rule 19 of the rules of the Supreme Court that they disclosed no cause of action. Mr Blackburn in person: Mr Gordon Slynn for the Attorney General . The Master of the Rolls said that once again Mr Blackburn had shown eternal vigilance in support of the law. His application concerned the Government's proposal to apply to sign the Treaty of Rome and to join the Common Market. Mr Blackburn sought declarations in his two statements of claim to the effect that in signing the treaty, Her Majesty's Government would surrender in part the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament forever and that in so doing the would act in breach of the law. The Attorney General had applied to strike out three actions on the ground that the statement of claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action. As Mr Blackburn said, it was important to clear the air; and his Lordship thought that was a legitimate desire. Mr Blackburn was quite right so far as his Lordship could judge in saying that if this country shold go into the ommon Market, the significance of the treaty would commit at least the executive irreversibly to the jointler od the Market and further that in some degree the sovereignty of these islands would be shared with others. The court had been referred to Costa v ENEL (1964 Common Market Law Reports concerning the Italian electrical industry, in which the judgement of the European Court was that member states albeit within limited spheres, had restricted their sovereignty rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves. Mr Blackburn pointed out that there might be many regulations which become automatically binding on the people of this country and that the courts of this country, in certain limited respects might have to follow decisions of the European Court. This was the basis of his application. But it was right to point out at the outset that everything at the moment was at the negotiation stage. No treaty had been signed, even if one were signed, the courts took no notice of treaties made by the executive in this country until they were embodied in law enacted by Parliament! That was so well established that his Lordship needed only to quote from Lord Coleridge Chief Justice in Restomice v The Queen(1876 2 OBD69 -74) that she (The Queen) acted throughout the making of the treaty and in relation to each and every of its stipulations in her sovereign character and by her own inherent authority and by making the treaty and peforming the treaty, she is beyond the control of municipal law and her acts are not to be examined in her own courts. Mr Blackburn accepted that but he said that the present proposed treaty was in a category by itself , in that it diminished the sovereignty of Parliament over the people of this country. His Lordship considered that the principle applied in the proposed treaty as to any other. The treaty making power of this country rested not in the courts but in the Crown - her Majesty acting on the advice of her ministers: and when they negotiated for and signed a treaty, even one of such paramount importance as that proposed, they acted on behalf of the country as a whole, and their conduct and peregative could not be challenged or questioned in the courts in any way. Secondly Mr Blackburn asked, could Parliament effectually or legitimately implement the treaty which was irreversible? He pointed out that lawyers from time immemorial had said that in England Parliament was supreme, so supreme that no Parliament could bind its successors and that any Parliament could reverse any previous enactment: and he had referred the court to Professor Mattland's statement in his Constitutional History (P.332) on the Act of the Union of England and Scotland that "we have no irrepealable laws" and that laws might be repealed by the ordinary legislature over the conditions on which the English and the Scottish Parliament agreed to merge themselves in the Parliament of Great Britain. It was legal theory that one Parliament could not bind another and that no Act was irreversible: but legal theory did not always march alongside political reality. Take the Statute of Westminster. Could anyone imagine that anyone could or would reverse it or the Acts which had granted independence to the great dominions and territories overseas and say that we still had some degree of control over them? Most clearly not. Whatever the theory of Parliament not being able to reverse itself, the matter could only be tested as and when the time came. His Lordship did not envisage that if we went into the Treaty of Rome, Parliament would reverse it: but the time to consider that was when Parliament sought to reverse it. It was certainly not a matter for consideration now. Nor was it necessary to rule on the Crown's submission that Mr Blackburn had no standing to come before the court. Mr Blackburn said the matter was one on which he felt very strongly and with which many persons in the country were concerned. His Lordship would not like ................. out on that ground. The ground on which he must be ruled out was that courts would not impugn the treaty making power of Her Majesty on the advice of her ministers and in so far as Parliament enacted legislation the courts would deal with it as and when they saw it. The statement of claim disclosed no cause of action and the appeal should be dismissed. LORD JUSTICE SALMON. concurring said that while he recognized the undoubted sincerity of Mr Blackburn's views, he deprecated litigation, the purpose of which was to influence political decisions which had nothing to do with courts. The Courts were concerned only with the effect of such decisions if and when they had been implemented by the legislature. Still less had the courts power to control the treaty-making power of the Sovereign. LORD JUSTICE STAMP also concurring, said that he expressed no view whatever on the implications in this country becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. Mr Blackburn had confused the separation between the powers of the Crown, Parliaments and the courts. The Crown entered into treaties. Parliament enacted the Laws. And it was the duty of the courts, in proper cases, to interpret these laws when made. The courts should not at the suit of one of her Majesty's subjects, make declarations regarding the doubted pregogative rights of the Crown to enter into treaties. Mr Slynn asked for the costs of the proceedings CONFIDENTIAL Mr Watts (Legal Advisors) SOVEREIGNTY 1. I mentioned to you, in connection with the paper on Sovereignty, the request from the Private Office for a short Annex and I undertook to make this request more explicit. 2. The Secretary of State had commented on the need for a paper to make clear "in what areas Parliament will not be able to determine policy". the paper as a whole is of course addressed to very much this problem but the Privat Office interpreted the Secretary of State's requirement as including the need to "identify areas such as tariffs which would be subject to Community control ( and particularly control by the Commission) and rates of taxation which would not. It would be worth listing major areas, such as "criminal law, over which control would be retained by the House of Commons". they also commented that this section should be produced as soon as possible; this fits in with our wish to put the paper as a whole to the Planning Committee in June. 3. I hope this gives you enough to go on. As I see it, the requirement is for a relatively short and factual Annex setting out the present range of subjects covered by Community law, regulations and directives under general headings. indicating which subjects are not now covered bu might become subject to Community regulation with the progressive "deepening" of the Community; and which areas (as for example the criminal law) were unlikely to continue to be regulated on a national level. 4. I hope to have the paper ready for circulation to members of the Planning Committee by Thursday 27 May. If at all possible we should like to have the Annex ready at the same time. W R Romkys Planning Staff 17 May 1971 Copied to: Mr P Cradock Mr Morland (EID) Written Answers 18 May 1971 Economic Community; and how many of these were in favour and how many against Great Britain's entry. Mr Rippon: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon Gentleman on 10th May - (Vol. 817. c23) Mr Clark Hutchison asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a list, subject by subject, of the regulations under the Treaty of Rome which will apply in the United Kingdom, if she joins the European Economic Community on preent known terms. Mr Rippon: Examination of acts of secondary legislation is part of the current negotiations and has not yet been completed. When the process of agreeing the texts of the adaptations required is completed, texts of all regulations, in English, will be made available to the House. Mr Clark Hutchison asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations made under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome are now in force; and what number of these would apply in the United Kingdom if she joined the European Economic Community on the latest terms. Mr Rippon: About 2,000 regulations are now in force. Regulations of the European Economic Community are of direct application in member States. BLOOD SPORTS Q8. Mr William Price asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 18th June on the subject of blood sports. The Prime Minister: About 3,000. MANAGEMENT EDUCATION Q9. Mr Douglas asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of responsibilites between the Scottish Office and the Department of Education and Science with respect to management education in relation to courses leading to national examiniations; and if he will make a statement. The Prime Minister: Yes SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES (SPEECH) Q10. Mr Roy Hughes asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Wales at Gateshead on 24th April on the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister: Yes SLOUGH Q11. Miss Lestor asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Slough. The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so. SCHOOL MEALS Q12. Dr. Gilbert asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received supporting Her Majesty's Government's decision to increase the price of school meals. The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon Member to the answer I gave on 6th May to a Question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr Golding) - (Vol 816. c44) PRIME MINSTER AND PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (MEETING) Q14. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Prime Minister whether during his forthcoming discussions with President Pompidou, he will discuss the possibility of creating a new European Community, open to any country in Europe, without any restrictions imposed on monetary action by member countries. The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon.Member to the answer I gave yesterday to questions from the hon Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr Deakins) - (Vol.817 c.228). 17th May 1971 U. Mr Micheal Clerk Hutchison (Edinburgh, South) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Offical Report, a list, subject by subject, of the regulations under the Treaty of Rome which will apply in the United Kingdomif she joins the European Economic Community on present known terms. MR GEOFFREY RIPPON Examination of acts of secondary legislation is part of the current negotiations and has not yet been completed. Then the process of agreeing the texts of the adaptations required is completed, texts of all regulations in force, in English, will be made available to the House. References: Flag A 26 April Vol 816 Col 8 Flag B 22 February Vol 812 Col 10W Flag C 22 February Vol 812 Col 13W Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit draft reply for the Chancellor of the Duchof Lancaster, to use in answering a Question from Mr Michael Clark Hutchison which asks if he will publish in the Official Report a list, subject by subject, of the regulations under the Treaty of Rome which will apply in the United Kingdom if she joins the European Economic Community on present known terms. 2. The Question is for written answer on 17 May P.R.T Dain 13 May 1971 (enc) PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION for written answer on 17th May 1971 U. Mr Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many regulations made under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome are now in force; and what number of these would apply in the United Kingdom if she joined the European Economic Community on the latest known terms. Signed Mr Geoffrey Rippon About 2,000 regulations are now in force. Regulations of the European Economic Community are of direct application in Member States. References Flag A 22 February Vol 812 Col 13W Flag B 22 February Vol. 812 Col 10W Flag C 26 April Vol 816 Col 8 Mr Ford Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit a draft reply for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to use in answering a Question from Mr Michael Clark Hutchison which asks how many regulations made under the provisions of the Treaty of Rom are now in force and what number of these would apply in the United Kingdom if she joined the European Economic Community on the latest known terms. 2. The Question is for written answer on 17 May 3. It is not possible at present to give a precise answer. Flag A indicates that by February this year, of some 8,000 regulations issued, about 2,000 were in force. About 500 are self-extinguishing and have or will lapse after a finite period. As the process of attrition in the 2,000 regulations in force, in February will have continued, it is unlikely that there has been any great overall increase in the number of regulations in force. the February estimate need not therefore be adjusted. P.R.T Dain 13 May 1971 Mr Steven D. AGREEMENT ON SECONDARY LEGISLATION AND AUTHENTIC ENGLISH TEXTS. Both the Group on Secondary Legislation and on Authentic English Texts will continue their work until the end of the year. On Secondary Legislation, technical adaptations are normally agreed within the Group, and reference to the conference is only made when requests for transitional periods of more than 3 months for Regulations and more than 6 months for Directives are needed. Outstanding cases in this category are our request for 5 years for the application of the Directive on Drivers' hours and the elimination of an intermediary stage for the application of tachographs to new commercial vehicles. About a dozen small problems of this kind may have to be resolved between June and the end of 1971. No particular problem is likely to arise in connection with the agreement on Authentic English Texts, beyond the sheet magnitude of the task in terms of the number of documents to be re-translated. E. NEGOTATION ON AN INTERIM PERIOD BETWEEN SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION. Officials in Whitehall, and independently, a Group within the Commission of the European Community are studying this problem, which arises for the need to provide the candidate countries with some say in what the Community does between signature of a Treat of Accession and its entry into force. One possible formula being considered in London is the creation of an Interim Council of Ministers, an Interim committee of Permanent Representatives and the extension of the mandate of the Secondary Legislation Group to study Community Legislation in draft. The Interim Council of Ministers should have the power to relegate Legislation unacceptable to one or other of the candidate countries to a special category, so that acts passed in such a category are reviewed within six months after the accession of new member states, or if they are not so reviewed, they would authomatically lapse. F. NEGOTIATION ON THE PARTICIPATION OF NEW MEMBER STATES IN THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS. This is likely to be a formal negotiation to review the proportion of places allocated to new members of the Community's institutions. G. NEGOTATION ON THE DRAFTING OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF ACCESSION ie the work of the drafting committee consisting of lawyers from each candidate state and the member states. Although the Community are divided on this point, it is possible that they may enquire, within the drafting Group, about the nature of domestic legislation which each member state proposes to enact to give effect to the Treaty of Accession. Written Answers 12 May 1971 Mr Fowler asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probabtionofficers were recruited in England and Wales in the years 1965,1966,1967,1968,1969 and 1970 respectively and how many probation officers resigned from the service prior to retirement in these years. Mr Carlisle: 328 in 1965 and subsequently 311,365,396,419 and 430. The respective numbers for resignations were 142,119,132,132,167 and 190. Buckoke and Others v G.L.C. Mr Clinton Davis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Buckoke and Others versus the Greater London Council; if he will introduce amending legislation to enable drivers of fire appliances, ambulances and police vehicles to be exempt from prosecution when disobeying robot traffic signals while on emergency calls and when it is so safe to do; and if he will now make a statement. Mr Sharples: My right hon. friendis considering the implications of the judgement in consultation with my right hon Friends, the Secretaries of State for Social Services for Scotland and for the Environment. Mr Marten asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, if Great Britain joins the Common Market, the residual national contributions will be replaced from 1975 onwards by up to 1 per cent of the receipts from a value-added tax or by a 1 per cent value-added tax. Mr Anthony Royle: The present system calls on the present member states of the Community for a financial contribution from 1975 which may not exceed 1 per cent of the receipts from a value-added tax. Her Majesty's Government will conform with the financial system of the Community by the end of the transitional period agreed in the negotiations. Mr W.H.K Baker asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Governments of South Africa, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Denmark with regard to Articles 17 to 21 of R.2142/70 of the European Economic Community's fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. Mr Rippon: there have been no consultations with the Governments of South Africa and Canada on this subject. We have had contacts with the Governments of Denmark and Norway, who have also applied for membership of the European Economic Community on matters of mutual interest arising out of the European Economic Community fisheries policy generally. We are also in regular contact with the Government of Iceland as a fellow member of E.F.T.A. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that the Danish Government have now agreed to hold a referendum on whether or not Denmark should enter the Common Market; and whether in view of this new information, he will reconsider the question of Great Britain holding a similar referendum and arrange to have discussions with the Danish Government to ascertain how and in what way they are to hold their referendum and to see to what extent a similar type of consultation with the people can be organised in Great Britain. Mr Anthony Royle: Arrangements for referenda in other countries on entry into the European Economic Community have no relevance to the position in this country. In arriving at a decision on terms agreed in the British negotiations with the European Economic Community established constitutional processes will be followed. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether in addition to Parliaments of member States being enabled to debate issues for decisions in the Community before decisions are taken in the institution of the Community, the Parliaments of member States are also enable to debate and change their decisions after the Community and/or its institutions have reached a decision on any matter. Mr Anthony Royle: It would be open to Parliament to debate Community legislation after it has been made by the institutions of the Community. If Parliament approves instruments of accession to the Treaties of the Community, these and accompanying United Kingdom legislation would determine the role of Parliament in relation to Community legislation. Mr Elyston Morgan asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the amount of money spent in Great Britain on advertisements in the Press advocating Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community during the last 12 months. Mr Anthony Royle: No. Mr Peel asked the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of representatives on the North Atlantic Assembly. Mr Anthony Royle: The following represent the United Kingdom on the North Atlantic Assembly: From the Government benches: the hon.Members for: Leicester, South East (Mr Peel) Cheltenham (Mr Dodds-Parker) Beckenham (Mr Goodhart) Bute and North Ayrshire (sir Fitzroy Maclean) Winchester (Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles) Haltemprice (Mr Wall) Baroness Elliot of Harwood Lord St Helens Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal From the Labour Party: The right hon.Member for Kettering (Sir G deFreitas) The right hon.Member for Aberavon (Mr Morris) The hon.Members for: Newark (Mr Bishop) Kirkdale (Mr Dunn) Huddersfield West (Mr Lomas) Lord Arwyn Lord Wynne-Jones From the Liberal Party: The hon Member for Montgomery (Mr Hooson) Viscount Norwich Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether in view of the information supplied to him by the hon.Member for West Ham, North, he will give an assurance that all persons living on boars, houseboats and other vessels moored on rivers, lakes, canals and the Norfolk Broads, have received and filled in their Census forms. Sir K. Joseph: Returns from Census field staff are not yet complete. A report on the coverage achieved by the Census will be made to Parliament in the normal way. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will cause an investigation to be made to ascertain to what extent Census enumerators broke their oaths of secrecy in divulging to any unauthorised person or organisations details which should not have been passed on to any person or organisations other than the Census Office; and what action he has taken or intends taking, in each instance, except in the case in which proceedings have been issued. Sir K. Joseph: Unlawful disclosure of any information acquired in the course of his employment as a Census enumerator would be a breach of the enumerator's undertaking. This is covered in the Census Regulations 1970, and does not require investigation. any such occurence would be dealt with under these regulations. Dr Trafford asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the first annual report of the National Health Advisory Service will be published; and if he will make a statement. Sir K. Joseph: The Report is published today by her Majesty's Stationery Office and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. for Oral (stricken through) Written answers on 11th May 1971 *La. Mr Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether, in addition to Parliament of member states being enabled to debate issues for decision in the Community before decisions are taken in the institution of the Community, the Parliaments of member states are also enable to debate and change their decisions after the community and/or its institutions have reach a decision on any matter. signed Mr Anthony Royle It would be open to Parliament to debate Community legislation after it has been made by the institutions of the Community. If Parliament approves instruments of accession to the Treaties of the Communities, these and accompanying United Kingdom legislation would determine the role of Parliament in relation to community legislation. REFERENCES Flag A 4 May Vol 816 Col 362W Flag B 10 May draft submission in answer to Mr Lewis Flag C 12 May draft submission in answer to Mr Lewis Mr Ford Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit a draft reply for Mr Royle to use in answering a Question from Mr Arthur Lewis which asks whether, in addition to Parliaments of member states being enabled to debate issues for decision in the Community before decision are taken in the institutions of the Community, the Parliaments of member states are also enabled to debate and change their decisions after the Community and/or its institutions have reached a decision on any matter. 2. The Question is for oral answer on 11 May but will not be reached. 3. The Question appears to arise out of an answer given on 4 May and is one of a sequence of Questions by Mr Lewis about the rights of Parliament in relaion to EEC legislation. 4. The draft answer has been cleared with Legal Advisors. A.H.Brind European Integration Department 10 May 1971 Written Answers 10 May 1971 83. Mr Ronald King Murray asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in light of the conditional and permissive character of the provisions of regional policy contained in Article 92(3) of the Treaty of Rome, he will seek an explicit declaration by the Six, prior to British entry, about their future intentions in this field. Mr Rippon: No Mr Deakins asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in negotiations with the European Economic Community to ensure the continuance of the International Sugar Agreement in the event of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community. Mr Rippon: The continuation of the International Sugar Agreement of 1968 does not depend upon Britain's negotations with the European Economic Community. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to have the response from the European Economic Community on his proposals for some form of continuing arrangements, subject to review, so far as New Zealand's exports of dairy products are concerned: and whether he will publish this reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Mr Rippon: We hope the Community will be in a position to reply in the near future. The details must remain confidential during the negotiations but I shall keep the House informed of developments. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will explain in more detail the type of sheepmeat regulation affecting exports of lamb which would be unfavourable to New Zealand, and which would necessitate him reopening the matter with the countries of the Six. Mr Rippon: We have consistently emphasised to the Community the extreme dependence of New Zealand on her exports of certain products, including lamb. I do not think it would be useful to speculate in detail on a future regulation. If, however, the Community proposed to introduce a regulation which would inflict serious damage on New Zealand's exports of lamb to an enlarged Community, this would have to be raised with them. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement giving details as to how Parliament will continue to exercise Sovereign powers in most areas of policy, except those delegated to the European institutions on Great Britain's entry to the European Economic Community ; on what basis of Parliamentary consent these delegated powers to European institutions will be arranged; and whether British members of Parliament will have the right to participate in the day-to-day work of all of these European institutions. Mr Rippon: If we enter the European Economic Community, Parliament will, in most areas of policy, continue to exercise its powers in the same way as it does today. After our accession it would be open to our Parliament, as it is to the Parliaments of other member States, to debate, before their enactment, those Community instruments to be submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers for approval. We shall be represented in all the Community institutions,including the European Parliament. Mr Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to hold an official meeting with the Prime Minister of New Zealand so as to discuss with him the results of recent meetings between him and the governments of the European Economic Community countries, in particular France. Mr Rippon: Neither my right hon.friend nor I have immediate plansto do so. The position was discussed in full with Sir Keith Holyoake during his recent visit to London and the process of consultation with the New Zealand authorities will continue. 10 May 1971 La. Mr Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he will make a statement giving details as to how Parliament will continue to exercise Sovereign powers in most areas of policy, except those delegated to European institutions on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community; on what basis of Parliamentary consent those delegated powers to European institutions will be arranged; and whether British Members of Parliament will have the right to participate in the day-to-day work of all of these European institutions. NO 29W MR GEOFFREY RIPPON If we enter the European Economic Community Parliament wiil, in most areas of policy, continue to exercise its powers in the same way as it does today. After our accession it would be open to our Parliament, as it is to the Parliaments of other member States, to debate, before their enactment, those Community instruments to be submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers for approval. We shall be represented in all the Community institutions, including the European Parliament. Mr ford Parliamentary Unit 1. I submit a draft reply for the Chancellor of the Duch of Lancaster to use in answering a Question from Mr Arthur Lewis, which asks whether he will make a statement giving full details as to how Parliament will continue to exercise Sovereign powers in most areas of policy, except those delegated to European institutions on Great Britain's entry into the EEC; on what basis of Parliamentary consent will these delegated powers to European institutions be arranged; and whether British Members of Parliament will have the right to participate in the day-to-day work of all of these European institutions. 2. The Question is for oral answer on 10 May but will not be taken orally and no notes for supplementaries are required. 3. The draft answer has been cleared with the Legal Advisers. A H Brind European Integration Department 7 May 1971 c.c. M de Winton Esq Law Officer's Department (Hand written) K Newman Esq Lord chancellor's Office I have sent a copy to the Lord President's Office Foreign and Commonwealth Office (All hand written) Private Secretary The answer is long but will not be reached. signed M Goldsmith 7 May 1971 PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION by oral answer 10th May 1971 *La. Mr Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement giving full details as to how Parliament will continue to exercise Sovereign powers in most areas of policy, except those delegated to European institutions on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community; on what basis of Parliamentary consent will these delegated powers to European institutions be arranged; and whether British Members of Parliament will have the right to participate in the day-to-day work of all of these European institutions. signed Geoffrey Rippon. If we enter the EEC, Parliament will, in most areas of policy, continue to exercise its powers in the same way as it does today. (The next paragraph is struck through) In respect of those areas in which the EEC has powers under the Treat of Rome, HMG will, of course, if negotiations are successful, bring before Parliament the instruments of accession the Treaties and the secondary legislation relating to them will also be available to this House. There will then be a full debate and decision. (End of striking through) After our accession, it will be open to our Parliament, as it is to the Parlaiments of other member States to debate, before the enactment those Community instruments to be submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers for approval. We shall be represented in all Community institutions including the European Parliament. 7 May 1971 Mr I.T.Steven "Ratification" of Community Decisions (EEC Treaty, articles 108(2), 138(3), 201 I should like to draw your attention to an interesting Commission Reply to Written Questions No 479/70 by Mr Droscher (O) No. C 39/23, 24 April 1971). The text is enclosed. 2. The Reply deals with the powers of national parliaments and authorities in relation to the implementation of Community acts. The term "ratification" is used - wrongly, but as it is often used on the continent - in the sense of parliamentary approval. 3. It is interesting that according to the Reply intervention by national authorites is required in the case of credits to be granted under Article 108(2)(c) but not, it seems, of other forms of mutual assistance rendered under the last subparagraph of article 108(2) Alexander Elkin KCS Room 347A Extn 502 c.c. Mr A.D.Watts Mr I.M.sinclair Mr M.A.Marshall. WRITTEN QUESTION No 479/70 from Mr Droscher at the Commission of the European Communities (27 January 1971) Subject: (Ratification of Community Decisions) During the course of the next few years the European Community will have to take decisions on the future development of the communities, in particular as regards the economic and monetary union, which will relate to a large extent to matters which until now have come within the legislative jurisdiction of the national parliaments (tax harmonisation etc). Measures taken by Community institutions will initially have to be ratified by national parliaments. The uncertainty as to whether a Community measure should or should not be ratified could create difficulties and delays in the integration process, although the omission of ratification procedures could further jeopardise the parliamentary system of the Communities. Therefore, the European Parliament should be able to reach agreement in time on these matters with the national parliaments. Is the Commission ready, in order to follow up this question, to compile a list of all the Community measures which will be subject to ratification by the national parliaments during the next two years? REPLY (6 April 1971) Apart from rare exceptions (Article 108 (2) (c), article 138 (3) and Article 201 of the EEC Treaty) the legal acts which the Community institutions are empowered to adopt in pursuance of the Treaties do not require intervention on part of the national authorities in order to produce binding effects within the Member States. As a result, their entry into force is not dependent either on approval by the national parliaments or on ratification by the state authorities having the appropriate powers. Doubtless, the enforcement of obligations arising for each Member State from measures adopted by Community institutions may call for internal implementing provisions, but when the national authorities adopt such provisions they only possess limited powers which are very different from the extensive discretionary powers exercised by national parliaments when they authorise the ratification of treaties. In theory, the implementation of Community measures in the Member States is entrusted to the competent state bodies having powers according to the alloction of powers under the national constituions. Since the constitutions of the various Member States do not allot legislative and executive powers in the same way it is very difficult to determine in an overall fashion for all the Member States which Community measures require ratification by Parliament. Mr Steven Mr Watts I should be grateful for your urgent observations on the attached PQ. It follows Mr Lewis' earlier Questions in this field. I attach the draft submission for the Question answered on 4 May for reference. The Question could possibly be answered as follows:- "It is open to Parliaments of Member States to debate issues for decision in the Community before decisions are taken in the Community. Thereafter, HMG, as a member of the Community will be able to express views in the formulation of decisions. many decisions, including those in key areas, must be agreed unanimously. After membership, British Members of Parliament will take part in the proceedings of the European Parliament and Britain will be representated in the other Community Institutions." I am aware that this provides only the flimsiest answer to the middle part of the Question about the basis of Parliament consent for the delegation of powers to the Community. This would possibly be covered by reviving as an additional second sentence in the answer the words (or a variation of them) proposed at one time by Mr Newman of the Lord Chancellor's Office viz:- 'But approval by Parliament of Instruments of Accession to the Treaties of the Communities necessarily implies a willingness on the part of Parliament to exercise certain restraints in the use of its constitutional powers.' If formulae give away too much perhaps the following alternative answer might be a better basis. 'If the negotiations succeed and HMG brings before Parliament Instruments of Accession to the Treaties of the Communities, these will clarify the extent to which Parliament's prerogatives will be affected by membership and will be subject of full debate and decision in Parliament. P.R.T.Dain 6 May 1971 (Handwritten) Mr Dain The first draft answer is not altogether correct since only.......... acts submitted by the Commission to the Council will be open for the Parliaments of Member States to debate. This excludes Acts by Commissions.......... the whole of the jurisprudence of the European Court. On the whole to prefit the final draft slightly amended and expanded as follows: "If the negotiations succeed, HMG will bring before Parliament the instruments of accession; the Treaties and the secondary legislation relating to these will be available to this House. There will be a full debate and decisions by Parliament on the issues involved. After membership it will be open to our Parliament as it is to the Parliaments of the member states, to debate before their enactment, those Community institutions to be submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers for approval. We shall of course be represented in all the Community institutions". Mr Adams Subject: Conservative Groups' Paper on Sovereignty. You copied to me and to Mr Sinclair minutes of 29 april to Mr Morland. I have now seen Mr Sinclair's thoughtful minutes of 30 April with which I entirely agree and to which I have nothing to add. I.Steven c.c. Mr I.M.Sinclair Mr M Morland Mr Adams (European Communities Information Unit) 1. Please refer to your minute of 29 April addressed to Mr Morland enclosing a copy of the draft paper on Sovereignty prepared by IRD for the eventual use of the Conservative Group for Europe. 2. I have a number of comments on particular passages which I will se out seriatim:- a) I think that the argumentation at lines 6-11 on page 3 is a little bit dangerous. It is certainly going too far to indicate that the Community has not tried to deny that Member States have a right of withdrawal; the wholeconcept of the Treaty of Rome is to establish a permanent Community and any admission that there is a right of withdrawal for individual Member States would be inconsistent with this fundamental concept. I would suggest that lines 6-11 on page 3 be replaced by the following:- "Its only basis is the provision that the Treaty of Rome is of indefinate duration and contains no provision for withdrawal. But there are other treaties which are likewise unlimited in time and confer no specific right of withdrawal (e.g. the United Nations Charter). The intention of the Treaty of Rome is of course to establish a permanent Community sharing common aims and aspirations and seeking common goals: to recognise any right of withdrawal would be inconsistent with this but of course it goes without saying that the Community could not compel a Member State to remain within the Community system if there was a change of circumstances so fundamental as to place in jeopardy the principles and purposes on which the Treaty of Rome is based." b) In the tenth line on page 4 I would suggest deletion of the words "by majority vote". The internal deliberations of the Court of Justice are secret. It pronounces on single judgement with no dissenting judgements. It is indeed true that some judgements may be adopted by majority vote but the absence of dissenting judgements is such a feature ofthe Court's procedure that it would be unwise to stress that the Court comes to its decision by majority vote. c) I am dubious about the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 4 (lines 21-25). I am not sure what is meant by the phrase " in reality they are strictly limited". I would suggest, as an alternative, something on the following lines: "Superficially these may appear far reaching powers but, in practice, they are, and can be, exercised only after a lengthy process of consultation with outside bodies and with other Community organs. In any event all basic regulations and directives have to be adopted by the Council of Ministers which, as already notes, consists of representatives of national governments who vote on all Community policies in accordance with their Government's views." d) The first paragraph under the sub-head "Policy Voting Procedure" (bottom of page 4 and top of page 5) is not, I think, entirely accurate. The positionis not that the voting provisions of the Treaty have been virtually suspended; it is rather that the practice of unanimity has continued even although, on certain matters, the Treaty now provides for qualified majority voting. I wonder if I can suggest something on the following lines:- "Although the original terms of the Treaty of Rom continue to apply, the voting procedure in the Council of Ministers does not at present accurately reflect those terms. In view of the predictions of immediate and irreversible losses of sovereignty made by opponents of Britain's entry, it may be noted that, in this case, the voting provisions of the Treaty have not been strictly applied since 1965 when one Member State - France - raised objection to the changeover on certain matters from unanimity to qualified majority voting." I amy say that I am not entirely happy even with this alternative version: another possible alternative would simply be to delete altogether the paragraph which begins at the bottom of page 4 and continues at the top of page 5. e) I find the phrase "while under a strictly legalistic reading of the Rome Treaty" at lines 9-10 on page 6 inaccurate and slightly objectionable; I would prefer it to be replaced by "while wholly inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome." f) The sentence beginning "many of our existing Treaty obligations....." at lines 11-14 of page 7 goes too far. Agreements like the GATT do not involve restrictions on the sovereignty of Parliament as Britain's sole law giver; rather they require Parliament to exercise restraint by not enacting provisions inconsistent with existing Treaty obligations. I would prefer the sentence to read:- "There are other international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs on Trades (GATT), the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Charter which impose certain restraints on the powers of Parliament if Britain is to comply with the Treaty obligations which it has assumed". g) I am a little dubious about the last two sentences in the first full paragraph on page 8 (lines 12 - 18). I would suggest an alternative on the following lines:- "Moreover, these EEC powers are exercisable essentially in relation to industrial and commercial concerns, and/to individuals in their private capacities. so far as Community law directly affects individuals in their private capacities it confers rights rather than imposes obligations. Thus an individual or undertaking is entitled to challenge the validity of any Community decision addressed to him on the grounds that the Community institution has misused its powers". I would like to omit reference to the possibility that a Member State can become a party to the proceedings in these circumstances; although this is true, it is in fact unusual for Member States to intervene in proceedings brought by an individual challenging the validity of a Community decision. I.M.Sinclair Legal Advisers K166 MA654 copied to Mr Morland Mr Steven 30 April 1971 Mr Morland (EID) 1. As you will see from Mr Tucker's minute below, the Conservative Group for Europe want to publish a pamphlet on Sovereignty. IRD have produced a first draft of this, and I should be grateful for your comments as soon as possible. I realise tht we do not want to falsify the Sovereignty issue or give our future Community partners the idea that we are frightened to commit ourselves in this respect. But Europe's wish to play down this issue as far as possible and reassure those people in Parliament and in the country who get emotional about loss of sovereignty. WJ Adams European Communities Information Unit 29 April 1971 copied to: Mr Sinclair (Legal Advisor) Mr Steven (EID) This is a big document and can take up to 30 minutes to download. If you would like a copy posted pleaseContact Us Back to the TOPTrain Travel (Tickets)
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERSHIP
(DISQUALIFICATIONS)
CANADIAN PARLIAMENT
CATERING MANAGER
(SALARY)
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
MINISTER (OFFICAL ENGAGEMENTS)
REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
BOYLE COMMITTEE
SCOTLAND
Autistic Children.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Probation Service
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
European Economic Community
North Atlantic Assembly (United Kingdom Representatives)
SOCIAL SERVICES
Census
Hospital Advisory Service (Annual Report)
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
European Economic Community
Document very kindly transcribed by Anne Upton (BCG Bristol)
Donate using Paypal
|
 |
Stat Counter
Current Events and Weekly Recordings, Interviews, Conversations
Aug08-2012
Committee of 300
Feb27
2011
Nov26
John Loeffler-Steel on Steel-Critical Thinking in an Age of Deceit..political power always follows a shift in monetary power.
Nov22
Tamar Yonah and Walid Shoebat Interview 3-Mid East Iran-Israel-Egypt-Turkey
Nov20
WHY ARE YOU ALL SO SILENT !!!!Tamar Yonah discusses The Palestinian Issue with Iraqi I.Q. Al Rassooli
KYLE BASS on BBC Hard Talk
Nov19
John Loeffler Steel on Steel-transforming Crisis into Transnational Technocracies-John Fonte Sovereignty or Submission:-Carl Teichrib explains Europe
Nov13
Tamar Yonah talks with
IQ.Rassooli-Arab Scholar=ref claim on Jerusalem a misconstruction at best
Nov12
John Loeffler Steel on Steel- Gun walking, the Middle East and Health Privacy
Nov08
Mosab Hassan Yousef
2. Deutscher Israelkongress - Mosab Hassan Yousef
Walid Shoebat with Tamar Yonah-2 UP DATE Iran-Israel-USA-Middle East
A REMINDER
Albert Burgess-A CASE FOR TREASON---PROPAGANDA THAT LED TO COMMON MARKET----HOW MI6 PUSHED BRITAIN TO JOIN EUROPE
Nov06
James Delingpole with guests Brit bloggers Christopher Booker and Richard North.EU-EURO IS A FOUR LETTER WORD!
Nov05
John Loeffler Steel on Steel- The Vatican’s Middle East Flip Flop..Israel.Jews-Christians-Islam-Europe...Politicos 'double standards.
Nov 04
Walid Shoebat with Tamar Yonah..
Committee of 300
There is a download issue on current recording with our ftp host
server ..access to previous recordings seem to be alright.
we are awaiting resolution. APOLOGIES
"The world is a dangerous place to live not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -
Albert Einstein
TO LATE ! NOW BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS?
Feb27
Global Government Confirmed!
Nigel Farage Returns to Alex Jones TV: Mr. Farage Puts Van Rompuy in His Place.GLOBAL WARMING-
CLIMATE CHANGE-
ALL SCAMS -FOLLOW THE MONEY - TAX IS THE METHOD
SERFDOM THE OBJECTIVE-
UP-DATED 30-04-10- More exposee on whose behind -Crime inc.USA style-Glenn Beck exposes Chicago Climate Exchange..its ownership ..its SCAM.The scam of Global Warming and whats really going on!
Jul31
John Loeffler-Steel on Steel- Agenda 21 Plus 20 with Henry Lamb (www.freedom21.org), Carl Teichrib (www.forcingchange.org),
Pat Wood (www.augustreview.com) and Mitch Wright join us for a spirited conversation.
CAROLINE GLICK-Israel and Iran after the Bomb
Pat Wood (www.augustreview.com) and Mitch Wright join us for a spirited conversation.
CAROLINE GLICK-Israel and Iran after the Bomb
Apr30
John Loeffler Steel on Steel; Joint Survival in the Middle East: Israel and Christianity; Christians in Islamic countries tied to Israel survival.
Porter Stansberry: My worst predictions are now coming true
"End of America" predictions, including his take on the dollar's recent plunge, the huge rallies in gold and silver, and what will happen next... when the Federal Reserve begins a third round of quantitative easing. He also explains what Americans must do now to protect themselves.
John Loeffler Steel on Steel; Joint Survival in the Middle East: Israel and Christianity; Christians in Islamic countries tied to Israel survival.
Porter Stansberry: My worst predictions are now coming true
"End of America" predictions, including his take on the dollar's recent plunge, the huge rallies in gold and silver, and what will happen next... when the Federal Reserve begins a third round of quantitative easing. He also explains what Americans must do now to protect themselves.
2011
November
Nov26
John Loeffler-Steel on Steel-Critical Thinking in an Age of Deceit..political power always follows a shift in monetary power.
Nov22
Tamar Yonah and Walid Shoebat Interview 3-Mid East Iran-Israel-Egypt-Turkey
Nov20
WHY ARE YOU ALL SO SILENT !!!!Tamar Yonah discusses The Palestinian Issue with Iraqi I.Q. Al Rassooli
KYLE BASS on BBC Hard Talk
Nov19
John Loeffler Steel on Steel-transforming Crisis into Transnational Technocracies-John Fonte Sovereignty or Submission:-Carl Teichrib explains Europe
Nov13
Tamar Yonah talks with
IQ.Rassooli-Arab Scholar=ref claim on Jerusalem a misconstruction at best
Nov12
John Loeffler Steel on Steel- Gun walking, the Middle East and Health Privacy
Nov08
Mosab Hassan Yousef
2. Deutscher Israelkongress - Mosab Hassan Yousef
Walid Shoebat with Tamar Yonah-2 UP DATE Iran-Israel-USA-Middle East
A REMINDER
Albert Burgess-A CASE FOR TREASON---PROPAGANDA THAT LED TO COMMON MARKET----HOW MI6 PUSHED BRITAIN TO JOIN EUROPE
Nov06
James Delingpole with guests Brit bloggers Christopher Booker and Richard North.EU-EURO IS A FOUR LETTER WORD!
Nov05
John Loeffler Steel on Steel- The Vatican’s Middle East Flip Flop..Israel.Jews-Christians-Islam-Europe...Politicos 'double standards.
Nov 04
Walid Shoebat with Tamar Yonah..
Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Israel.
Connecting the Dots...E.U RULES, REGULATIONS, DIRECTIVES and Comments.
WITHDRAWAL FROM LISBON TREATY!!!
TO LATE! NOW BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS?
Yet again, the truther MEP, Nigel Farage, speaks some hard truths at the EU. He warns of the collapse of the Euro. He also points out the Communist backgrounds of the main players in the so called democratic union.
December
EU -Current Regulations, Directives, Laws & comments.
Global Government Confirmed!
Nigel Farage Returns to Alex Jones TV: Mr. Farage Puts Van Rompuy in His Place.Yet again, the truther MEP, Nigel Farage, speaks some hard truths at the EU. He warns of the collapse of the Euro. He also points out the Communist backgrounds of the main players in the so called democratic union.
Apr01
we want our referendum
Current Weekly News Reviews
Deferred until demand exceeds our wish.
Current Health Watch
Current Ecological Matters
Current Larf Out Loud
10.4.2009
The Royal Family...Enjoy
11.4.2009
Fire Fighter Rescue!
22.4.2009
SO WHOSE STUPID ...REALLY? REMEMBER...SOME OF YOU MINORITIES, VOTED FOR THIS MOB! I'D DESCRIBE THEM DIFFERENTLY..BUT DONT WANT TO GET SUED. Brownies Budget EXPLAINED ...till the monies run out then we pay. Do you think Brownie cares?
12.5.2009
Is there any one left in the UK, that will vote for prudence brownie?
24.5.2009
SURGEONS:
28.5.2009
Cassette Boy versus the Bloody Apprentice
27.7.09
CARNATION MILK
Current Religion
No comments are accepted on any of these recordings.
Harold Hoffman presents alternative understandings from his personal archives - recorded 35 years ago.
====================
20.8.2008
Preservation and Humility, what they mean, for real.
click to listen circa 22.00 Sunday 20.8.2008
====================
27.7.2008
The Line of Life. "I WANT... I AM... WHERE AM I?"
This discussion will loose most of you but don't worry, love the struggle!
The natural laws and some further world history.
====================
22.7.2008
Extra: Explains the soul and spirit.
An updating of the Human Condition.
click to listen
This is different... not heard before in open lectures. Challenging and you may think confrontational - but Harold has made the decision to release it anyway! Accept the information or reject it... that's your choice!
====================
No comments are accepted on any these recordings.
Harold Hoffman presents alternative understandings of Religion in three 90 minute lectures. Covering briefly, but not in our chronological order, so be patient - some challenging goodies are contained herein.
PART 1
PART 2 18.7.2008
click to listen
PART 3 18.7.2008
click to listen
These lectures are from Harold's personal archives - dating back 35 years ago.
Covering 'World History' from pre sands Egypt to current times and 'Esoteric Understandings'. History, Esoteric and Occult keys, the different types of religions, from whence they came and what this portends for the future - including how it all fits into the current times, of economics, geo-politics, law, judiciary, religious practices, moral philosophies, ceremony, magic and rituals; all in brief.
Before listening to these recordings it may be useful to have also listened to film director, Chris Everard, in conversation with Harold Hoffman.
The Pig Barn Meeting: Sheer delight, 3 hours of pure esoteric and occult delight. For those that have the Ears to SEE!
21.5.2009
The Pineal Gland..Stairway to Heaven???????
Conversations to remember
Ashley Mote: Independant Member of European Parliament
Weekly Letter from Brussels.
Starting in next few days:
Letter from the Asylum
ashley mote
......................................
WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE FIRST OF MANY INTERVIEWS WITH ASHLEY MOTE.
website http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/
Britain is committing collective suicide”
Sensational new pamphlet J’Accuse…!
calls on British “to re-install own standards”
Most of the elderly in Britain are indigenous. Most of the young are the children of migrants.
The British nation and its way of life are in serious danger of disappearing within one lifetime, certainly within two.
“We are committing collective suicide.”
That is the conclusion of a new pamphlet J’Accuse…! by Ashley Mote MEP, vice-president of the Alliance of Independent Democrats in Europe.
'J’Accuse!' accuses the European Union and the British government of the “deliberate destruction of British identity”.
The pamphlet points the finger at uncontrolled immigration, the failure of the British to produce enough children to sustain their own future, the utterly inadequate education of tens of thousands of young people, and the exploitation of so-called ‘terrorism’ to impose a regime of oppression.
Together these factors have eroded fundamental British values. Britain is becoming a third-world country – a western version of a banana republic.
“Much of this change has been imported. It is our fault. We have allowed it to happen and we are now allowing other ideas and ways of life to replace our own.”
'J’Accuse!' goes on…“The whole point about the British way of life is our absolute right to enjoy our country and freedoms in peace. They are not the product of the law. Instead, the law and our government are there to protect that right and those freedoms – not destroy them.
“Yet it is our own government that is today the greatest single source of terrorism. Theirs is the terrorism of state control.”
The number of criminal offences on the statute book has doubled since 1997 – one more for every day Labour has been in power. Britain has become a self-imposed police state.
'J’Accuse!' concludes : “Our British way of life is at terrible risk. We British need to go back to our roots, and re-install our own standards.”
Copies of 'J’Accuse!' are available via the website http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/ or by writing to PO Box 216, Alton, Hants, GU34 4WY.
---------------------------------
MEP, vice-president of the Alliance of Independent Democrats in Europe.
'J’Accuse!' accuses the European Union and the British government of the “deliberate destruction of British identity”.
Harold Hoffman interviews Ashley Mote M.E.P
They discuss: Europe... the UK.. and what the future holds for the sceptred isle... this jewel this "new jerusalem"?
click to listen
Access full details of Ashley Mote site a:
http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/
See below for his home page.
Journalist turned businessman turned author. Now a regular columnist, broadcaster and political campaigner. Special interest in British constitutional history.
In 1972 he started his own international marketing business, helping major industrial companies to increase their export business. At one time the company had offices in Houston and Atlanta, USA, Geneva and London. The Tory government's foolhardy attempt to shadow the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in the late 1980s and early 1990s ultimately forced interest rates to 15% and destroyed Ashley Mote's business, along with over 100,000 others.
Having had such bitter first-hand experience of the damage the ERM could do, he started researching the European Union. This led to his book Vigilance - A Defence of British Liberty. Vigilance is one of the fastest-selling books about the EU ever published. His second political book, OverCrowded Britain is about the UK's immigration crisis, and was published in 2003.
In 2000, Ashley drafted a Petition to Her Majesty under Article 61 of Magna Carta, which was later signed by 28 peers and taken to Buckingham Palace by the Duke of Rutland and others. The petition asked Her Majesty not to grant the Royal Assent to the Bill to ratify the EU's Treaty of Nice - an appeal which reports suggest came close to success.
A founder member of the SANITY group (Subjects Against the Nice Treaty), Ashley worked closely with Trevor Colman to produce three videos about the EU. The launch of Shockwaves resulted in sales of over 1000 a day. Since then he has written and directed two others - Better Off Out and Who Governs Britain?
Briefly active in the Liberal Party of Joe Grimond and Jeremy Thorpe, Ashley left when the party was taken over by left-wingers. He joined the UK Independence Party just before the 2001 general election as the only political home for people wanting Britain to leave the EU altogether. At the 2004 European parliamentary elections he won the second seat for UKIP in the south-east of England.
He now sits as the UK's only independent member of the European Parliament, free to fight for the early withdrawal of the UK from the European Union and the restoration of government of the British by the British for the British.
Married with two adult children. Ashley Mote is the author of several other books, including The Glory Days of Cricket, which won the Cricket Society Literary Award in 1997.
He is a member of the Hambledon Club and a Freeman of the City of London. His other interests include music, the theatre, good company and rugby.
---------------------------------
Gerard Batten UKIP MEP
Interview and possible weekly fortnight
Review from Brussels
Interview with Gerard Batten (U.K.I.P- M E P member of the european parliament) Click to Listen
his website, Gerard Batten
24.7.2007
---------------------------------
Experts in their Fields
Dr Richard North
weekly/fortnightly review on EU - THE EU SCEPTIC MOVEMENT AND EXIT STARATEGY FOR UK.
E U Referendum
Dr Richard North explains the The Reform Treaty and Why the people MUST have a vote! with Harold Hoffman
Click to Listen
27.7.2007 (7993)
--------------------------------
Prof Dennis Cuddy
10/27/2007
Modeling the Modern Middle East
LISTEN
PLEASE NOTE: ACCESS OUR THREE INTERVIEWS WITH PROF DENNIS CUDDY IN 'INTERVIEWS' AND ALSO IN 'LISTEN AGAIN'.
http://britanniaradio.co.uk/?q=node/2
The U.S. waved its light saber at Iran again this week, amid will- they or won't-they speculation about attacking that country, Russian President Putin's admonitions notwithstanding.
The world didn't arrive at today's Middle East in a vacuum. It's largely a product of century-old streams of globalist political thought, coupled with interventions by western counties such as France, Great Britain and the United States, topped off with Shiite Islamic expectations for the re-emergence of the Twelfth Imam. Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Ph.D, author of "The Globalists," is our sole guest for today's perspective-oriented program.27.10.2007
Prof Dennis L Cuddy fortnightly letter from the East Coast
via News with Views
Click to Listen 28.7.2007 (8057)
Dr Dennis Cuddy-A brief dissertation on whats really happening-The Revelations of the WORLD GOVERNMENT-BACKED BY HIS DOCUMENTATION-A MUST LISTEN-A WARNING TO WAKE UP-NOW !!!
THE EU-THE USA-THE MIDDLE EAST-ISRAEL-PAKISTAN-WW2-NAZISM-MONNETT-FABIANS-DIALECTS AND DELPHIC TECHNIQUES- A NEW RELIGION-GLOBALISTS-SOLANA-A WORLD SOCIALIST GOVT IN THE MAKING NOW!!!!!
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS WE SHALL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THEM ON OUR NEXT INTERVIEW
2ND INTERVIEW WITH DR DENNIS CUDDY
Click to Listen
Prof Dennis Cuddy with Harold Hoffman
An interview harold hoffman-world view and global implications
16.1.2007
-------------------------------
Prof Eugene Narrett a series of commencing beginning August
weekly 1 hour interviews on:-
Israel End Times
Israel End Times
Reminder of First Lecture by Prof Eugene Narrett
Click to Listen
2.8.2007 (8179)
To include:
Broad strokes. With illustrative details and examples of the situation in Israel and how it clarifies the drive toward a world state. Then in the subsequent shows, the topics on the list below:
Machiavelli and the Counter-Revolution of Paganism, 1500-1815
Western fragmentation, progress and regression, 1500-1900
Sympathy for the Devil: Romanticism and 'Darwin' 1790-1930
British Hysterics: Gothicism, Feminism and the New Empire
Working for the Three Bloc World: Betrayal, Eugenics, and Control
There's no Success like Failure... 1920 - 1966, Wars, cults and Vietnam
The pivotal year of the endtimes: 1967 and the Great Betrayal, Eras in Conflict
Land for Peace, the borderless world and War Eternal
--------------------
Prof. Eugene Narrett lecture-part 2
Machiavelli-and paganism-1500-1815
Click to Listen 8.8.2007 (8353)Link
his current book World War threeBooks by Dr. Narrett
3rd Lecture Machiavelli-Shakespeare
Click to Listen
4th Lecture Shakespeare
Click to Listen
Part 5 William Blake- click to listen
Part 6 Symapthy with the Devil
Prof Narrett part 6 shelley-hegel-marx-Dialectic-new theology in the west-a new social order-auguste comte-darwin-galton-huxley-conflict to religious thought-Romanticism-ROMAN TICISM
click to listen
Prof Eugene Narrett lecture 7-Mary Shelley and Frankenstein -click to listen
unausa.org-COMMON PURPOSE-social physchological social control-prohibition-sympathy-despair and horror-Illuminati in Engelstadt & Percy Shelley & Rosicruscianism
Prof Eugene Narrett-leture 8 Shelley-Frankenstein Dialectics-intellectualism gone mad click to listen
Prof Eugene Narrett in conversation with Harold Hoffman
leture 9 Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus-the monsters education and the authors blind spot: the failure of romantic teaching
click to listen
apologies for bad background hiss
Professor Eugene Narrett in conversation with Harold Hoffman lecture 10 Gothicism Terror Awe Majik or Madness into the Culture of the West
click to listen
NOTHING NEW ITS OVER 5000 PLUS YEARS-EUGENICS-EUGENICS-EUGENICS-FROM CORRUPTION -DECEIT THROUGH ROMAN-TICISM-GOTHIC GLOBAL TERROR TO HUMAN ELIMINATION
PROF EUGENE NARRETT IN CLASS 11 WITH HAROLD HOFFMAN
CLICK TO LISTEN
Prof Eugene Narrett and Harold Hoffman discuss the span of history involving the EUGENICS MOVEMEMNT-FROM 1850's to the 1950's lecture 12
The deeper understandings of how this PROCESS AND PHILOSOPHY applies to destruction of Nation States and the furthering of the Global Agenda with such notaries as Machiavelli-Malthaus-Darwin-Galton-Huxleys's-Carnigie-Rockefeller-Sanger-Blavatsky-H G Wells-
click to listen
PROF EUGENE NARRETT AND HAROLD HOFFMAN DISCUSS LECTURE 13-THE EUGENICS PROCESS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF 1967 LECT 13 -WHEN ALL WAS POSSIBLE BUT FAILURE HAPPENED-VERY IN DEPTH OF HISTRY TO ALMOST CURRENT TIMES SETTING THE CURRENT SCENE
click to listen
Professor Eugene Narrett and Harold Hoffman discuss 1967 Turning Point in the Mid East-Israel
lecture14 GLOBALISATION-IN SPORT ACROSS RUSSIA-EUROPE AND N.AMERICA -DESTRUCTION OF HISTORY FORGETTING NOT REMEMBRANCE-ATTEMPT TO DESTROY RELIGION FOR A NEW RELIGION FRAGMENTATION-FEDERATION-INTERNATIONALIZE-IMMIGRATION AQUARIAN AGE FEMINISM SWINGING 60's BIRTH CONTROL FAMILY UNIT DESTRUCTION-MOVING TO AN AGE OF HI TECH FEUDALISM-ALICE BAILEY
click to listen
---------
CLICK TO LISTEN
Prof Eugene Narrett with Harold Hoffman ANNAPOLIS -ISRAEL-THE END TIMES -VITAL TO LISTEN
Israel as the control group for human kind and a template for whats already done in Europe and being done in USA-FROM 1967 TO 1973 -2007-The True state of Israel- Israeli Politics-Whats happening now The Future Problems !!!!!
Prof Eugene Narrett with Harold Hoffman discuss Annapolis-N Intelligence Iran Holocaust
click to listen
18.12.2007 16
Prof Eugene Narret in converstaion with Harold Hoffman-Israel's Destruction-Global Security State-what it all means-part 7
click to listen
Professor Narrett analyzes the dark side of the War on Terror and exposes its true and startling target. You will read the news with new and opened eyes after examining this study. With his characteristic breadth of relevant sources, he examines Western culture from ancient works to post-Modernism.
=============================
The Policy to Destroy Israel
and timely for Annapolis)with the shifting comments on
geopolitics and religion
click to listen
Please note our 10 plus 4 more
interviews to come on britanniaradio
Interviews
In this show, Dr. Eugene Narrett describes the interlocking strands between
British policy from 1920s through 1940s (and timely for Annapolis)
with the shifting comments on
geopolitics and religion of Aquarian guru Alice Bailey.
These facts give a new meaning to "land for peace" and
"internationalizing Jerusalem".
This show exposes the diabolical plans the British
and the wider International Community have,
planned for Israel.
--------------------
HIR
Prof Francisco Gil White
History of the 20th Century
14 hourly lecturesd
(Nazi Ideaology and infiltration into terrorist movements
How it effects the Mid East and Israel perhaps future prophetic interpretations?
History of the 20th Century
14 chapters-14 interviews(listed as per his book chapters)
Click to Listen
to his site HIR
part1-as promised
Dissertation by Prof Francisco Gil White
His Background
The Importance of History
The Creation of the Eugenics Movement
Oh -Its those Jews Again
Dr Francisco Gil White-part 2 History of the 20th Century- The Name -Palestine-and Hadjamini al Husseini-in converstaion with Harold Hoffman
Click to Listen
30.7.2007 (8113)
Prof Gil White(-chapter 4-) our part 3- The Rise of the Eugenics Movement in Germany-History-Aristocracy-and the rise of Hitler-the role of the USA/UK ELITE-
Click to Listen
The role of the Vatican -pope pius 12th -chapter 5 part our part 4-Click to Listen
--------------------
Who is Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.?
First Interview with Gaylon Ross Snr.
CLICK TO LISTEN
PLEASE NOTE: TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO USA NOT GOOD - SO YOU WILL HAVE TO INCREASE VOLUME WHEN GAYLON IS SPEAKING.
http://www.4rie.com/
Born in Big Lake, Texas, he holds a BS degree in Industrial Engineering from Texas A & M University. While active in engineering, he was a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, and a National Certified Manufacturing Engineer. After graduation, he accepted a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant (later promoted to 1st Lt.) in the Army Security Agency (ASA), a branch of the National Security Agency (NSA), which is a big brother to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Military training was in the field of cryptoanalysis (the breaking of codes), and served as a Company Commander with an Intelligence Unit on the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in the Chorwan valley of South Korea, from 1956 to 1957 (after the fighting had ceased).
Upon leaving active duty, began his professional career in the petroleum industry. Served as an Industrial Engineer for ten years until being promoted into management, and was a manufacturing Plant Manager for over ten years.The past seventeen years he served as an International Management Consultant, working in the US, Japan, Mexico, Canada, England, and Iran.
After completing the manuscript to the first book, Who's Who of the Elite, he contacted a number of publishers to ascertain their interest in this material. They all declined because of the subject matter, so he formed his own publishing company, RIE, and published this first of fourteen books in progress. The author has devoted the rest of his life to exposing the real truth about those evil ones in this world who would like to make us all their slaves
27.1.2008
===
March 23, 2008
Back to the future
By Ted Belman Israpundit, for regular update of news from Toronto, London and Israel.
We discuss Obama Barak and his background. Real revelations! The battle with the Clintons and McCain's position. Finally, Ted Belman's view of Israel's state. Optimistic.
========
Dr Sean Gabb director of Libertarian Alliance monthly review of one to two topical news items and their relevance to current issues and the Libertarian Alliance philosophy Libertarian Alliance
Interview with Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance by Harold Hoffman Click to Listen We are pleased to announce the discussion with Dr Sean Gabb-
--------------------------------
John Galt on a fortnightly basis and his views on the current state of Nations and the lack off a Spiritual -Religious Dimension in the West.
The Cassandra File click to listen Be a fly on the wall and listen to John Galt and Cassandra and myself discuss: The failure of the UK and its population.
====================
1.7.2008
Harold Hoffman interviewed by Tamar Yonah, Israel National Radio. PARADIGM SHIFT: the Financial Tsunami WE ARE IN NOW... Tuesday morning interview on site click to listen
THE PARADIGM SHIFT WE ARE EXPERIENCING.
=========
Chris Everard. Controversial? Yes Definitely. Thought Provoking? Undoubtedly!
Four weekly interviews
1a: Secret Societies; Illuminati.
click to listen
1b: Spirit Worlds; Illuminati.
click to listen
2: Royalty,
EU,
Space Programmes.
Very Revealing!
click to listen
3:Magic
click to listen
www.enigmatv.com
Filmography -
http://www.illuminatiDVD.com/
http://www.antichristDVD.com/
http://www.SecretSpaceDVD.com/
http://www.SpiritWorldDVD.com/
http://www.LadyDieDVD.com/
He is Britain’s most successful documentary film-maker. He is the only British director making feature-length documentaries for cinema audiences and the only British director to have late show slots every weekend at cinemas in Los Angeles, New York, Paris and Rome simultaneously. His is called the ‘Enfant Terrible!’ (which means the terrible child) of British Cinema by Paris Match magazine.
In 2007, he made no less than 4 x 2 hour feature-length documentaries, which were all subsequently released on DVD, each with 2 hour bonus discs. That means in 2007 he almost single-handedly matched the entire cinema output of the combined British Film Industry. Since 2004, he has made no less than 7 feature-length documentaries which have all been on independent cinema release and then sold to DVD worldwide.
===========
Previous interviews on site under Listen Again and Listen Now.
Nigel Farage with Adrian Lithgow.
Nigel Farage leader of UKIP
28.10.2006
Daniel Hannan with Martin Jay.
Interview on the EU and its various implications for the UK - Daniel Hannan noted Journalist and MEP FOR S.E. ENGLAND.
Click to Listen
Tamar Yonah with Harold Hoffman.
Harold Hoffman with Tamar Yonah on aspects of the EU.
24.10.2006
John Loeffler: Steel on Steel with Harold Hoffman.
Part 2 of 2 on the EU.
18.11.2006
Part 1 of 2 on the EU.
14.11.2006
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments