The Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541 (33 Hen 8 c 21) was an Act of the Parliament of England, passed in 1542 to authorise the execution of Catherine Howardfor adultery. It also created a new way in which the Royal Assent could be granted to legislation.
Queen Catherine was to be convicted by bill of attainder, rather than by ordinary prosecution in a court of law.
However, until 1542 the Royal Assent could only be granted by the king in person, at a ceremony in which the whole text of the bill would be read aloud. King Henry decided that "the repetition of so grievous a Story and the recital of so infamous a Crime" in his presence "might reopen a Wound already closing in the Royal Bosom.
" To avoid this, Parliament inserted a clause in the bill of attainder, which provided that the Royal Assent could be granted by commissioners appointed for the purpose, instead of by the king in person. Initially used sparingly, the new procedure gradually became used more often until it became the usual way. The last monarch to grant Royal Assent in person was Queen Victoria in 1854.
The Act was repealed by section 2(2) of the Royal Assent Act 1967, which however preserved the Commissioners' role.
Royal Assent Act 1967 (whole act) dataThis Act repealed the Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541 (of which I have a paper copy from the archives) by which Henry the 8th distanced himself from beheading one of his wives, so in effect the crown took back it's right to Royal Assent with this act, even though the Monarch has to appear in person to activate it.
Has the Royal Prerogative of the British Crown been given to The European Union?
What about Royal Assent too?
This stems from before the Treaty of Lisbon and the instrument in it, yet this gives to the European Union the right to make an EU-USA agreement –(Legal Personality which did not appear until the Treaty of Lisbon.’ The main and most important instrument here in the United Kingdom our Government uses on behalf of the British Crown is The Royal Prerogative. It is indeed the instrument the Government uses on behalf of the Crown for agreeing to and/or ratifying Treaties and/or Agreements and/or those matters that are intended to be of a permanent nature. (Mindful also that “No Parliament May Bind Another”!) One of its most notable uses came through the EU-USA yet what base re previous EU Treaties? And on this matter, there had been no debate in our Parliament at all. What ‘instrument’ did the EU use when the EU spoke then for all the Nation States? The first time this was mentioned in one of our Houses of Parliament was during the Extradition Bill Wednesday 18th June 2003 in the House of Lords.
Before you continue to read further and from what is taking place in our Parliament at this particular time- a Coalition Government that since it has been in alleged Government has mainly implemented EU legislation and for the rest, looks like it is destroying our Constitutional arrangements starting once more with the destruction of the House of Lords.
From what I have recently read recently in what the EU is doing, or if you do not realise what the European Union is doing to your Country and what the EU is really all about I feel I must say to you, that if you really care about your Country, your way of life and to protect your children so they can enjoy that freedom what a previous Generation of this Country and many Members of the Commonwealth gave their lives for- or you do not realise what each Major Political Party has done to this their own Country since just before 1972 yet known since the late 1950’s certainly during the 1960’s and done this allegedly all in YOUR NAMES, for we have freely elected them and they will continue to do so if you keep on voting for them, until you have no Country left. This country along with other Countries will be broke-because far too much money has been given by Governments, to the European Union in contributions and the many EU Agencies. We will have no Defence to defend ourselves-that is being dealt with at the moment. You will have no privacy because all information is being give to foreigners and even to America. No Police to call our own, No NHS, No British Justice, etc, etc, for they will be gone forever. Can you imagine this Island nation without its own NAVY?
Only for a little while longer is it possible to put an end to all this treachery that is presently taking place and which is on top of the sheer treachery and treason that has gone before even in the 1950’so very soon after that terrible war. Today’s politicians strut on the World Stage, giving themselves titles and themselves the pay to go with them. But there will be no United Kingdom and no British Citizens or Subjects of the Crown. It is to that all in this Country are being led.
EU-USA Judicial Cooperation Agreements.
Verbatim report of part only of the proceedings during the sitting of Tuesday 3rd June 2003 in the European Parliament under the chairmanship of Mr Hernández Mollar, the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.
Vitorino, Commission: continuing in a rather long speech, “ We now need to make an overall assessment of the result of the negotiations. One of the criteria for this assessment is the added value of a Union agreement compared with the situation that currently exists on the basis of bilateral agreements between Member States and the United States of America. This assessment has to be made taking due account of the fact that this is, as the President mentioned, the very first Union Agreement in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, and it will be an historical precedent.
Regarding protection against the death penalty, the draft extradition agreement compares with the strongest anti-death penalty clauses that can be found in existing bilateral treaties, whether an agreement with a Member State or one with a candidate country. This means that as far as all the other bilateral agreements are concerned, this anti-death penalty provision is stronger in the current European Union agreement than in the vast majority of others. In addition it allows the invoking of all grounds for refusal available pursuant to a bilateral extradition treaty between a Member State and the United States, and will open the possibility of consultation in the event that constitutional principles or final judicial decisions binding upon a requested state may impede the fulfilment of an extradition. This provision, combined with specific references in the recitals to individual rights, fair trial and an impartial tribunal, offers significant guarantees.
Evans, Robert J.E. (PSE). President Bush has promised that the United States will always stand firm for equal justice. If that is true, he and others must call an immediate halt to the practice of executions in the United States. Over the last 25 years over 840 people have been executed following many of the murders in the United States. Murders are carried out equally by white people and black people, and yet some 15 times as many black Americans have been executed as white people. Black people are often tried before all-white juries, so we should have great concern about any Europeans being extradited to the United States and we must question even more the whole American legal system that allows that.
Terrón I Cusí (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, this is indeed a significant agreement. It is the first time the European Union has negotiated an agreement of this nature in its own right. A precedent is being set. In my view therefore the concerns raised by the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs concerning the conduct of negotiations and approval of the agreement are entirely justified, and I support his views
Berthu (NI), in writing. – (FR) The EU-USA agreements on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and extradition are entirely necessary, especially in the fight against terrorism. However, they raise for the first time the question of the interpretation of Articles 38 and 24 of the EU Treaty, introduced by the Treaty of Nice, concerning the conclusion of international agreements by the European Union in the fields of the second and third pillars.
Those articles were drawn up and adopted with culpable negligence despite the warnings I gave in my counter-report on the Treaty of Nice. We are seeing the consequences of that today: the national parliaments used to have the right to ratify such international agreements, but they have lost that right today and the European Parliament for its part has gained no equivalent right.
It is true that the States are now trying to find a national power of scrutiny by way of the ‘constitutional reservation’ that may enable them to go back to their national parliaments. But that is far from being a perfect solution.
We see here the consequences of badly negotiated treaties. The Convention on the future of Europe ought to correct that and bring the national parliaments back into play. Unfortunately, it seems to want to go in the opposite direction.
Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This is a matter of the utmost importance and one which should fundamentally fall within the competence of each individual country. For this very reason, it is unacceptable that the Council should have declassified the text of the two draft agreements with the USA, only one month before these, the first agreements in this sphere between the EU and a third country, were due to be signed.
These agreements are all the more significant in political terms because they are being signed at a time when ‘security’ measures are being implemented that endanger citizens’ rights, guarantees and freedoms and when the US is holding hundreds of people under arrest at its military base in Guantánamo, without having accused them or put them on trial, or when it demands that other States give it total immunity from the International Criminal Court.
The current wording of the agreements raises some fundamental issues, such as extradition to a country which still applies the death penalty and which has legislation that in the name of the ‘war on terrorism’, breaches fundamental rights; personal data protection, applied retroactively, and a lack of control, specifically of the so-called joint investigation teams.
Whilst criticising some aspects of the agreements’ content, the EP’s recommendation supports their broad thrust, and so we have voted against it.
Korakas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Even the debate on this issue, just a few days after the criminal invasion of Iraq by the British and American forces, constitutes provocation.
Under this agreement, the ΕU can hand the citizens of its Member States and their personal data over, with no strings attached, to the jurisdiction of the USA, the prosecuting authorities of which will do as they please far from any democratic control. Joint EU/USA investigating teams will operate uncontrolled in the ΕU, in violation of national constitutions and domestic law.
This is an agreement at the expense of the citizens of the Member States of the ΕU. It does not result in any differentiation in the domestic law of the USA, such as the repeal of the death penalty or the discriminatory provisions in the 'patriotic law' which deny non-US citizens legal aid, changes to the legislation of states in the USA which are incompatible with European law, or an end to the inhumane detention of prisoners of war, including citizens of Member States of the EU in Guantánamo.
We call on our peoples to organise mass demonstrations against a dangerous agreement which, on the pretext of combating terrorism, will escalate prosecutions against the grass-roots, anti-imperialist movement by extraditing the fighters at its vanguard to the USA, together with anyone in general whom the USA considers suspicious; to prevent the legalisation of uncontrolled activities by the US prosecuting authorities in the ΕU and to stop their governments from ratifying any such agreement.
Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) In the past, countries did not extradite their own nationals. These days, the EU functions as a single state, with a number of guarantees in place to prevent people from being punished for something that is allowed in their own countries. Extraditions from the EU to other countries outside it go even further than that and are downright dangerous. This is certainly true for countries using a different penal system, such as the United States of America, where prisoners of war are locked up without any rights in camps that do not fall within the scope of American law and where the International Criminal Court is not recognised. It is a matter of some importance to us Europeans that capital punishment exists over there and that innocent suspects first need to admit their guilt before they can negotiate a reduction of their sentences. People living in Europe need to be protected from being subjected to that American system. Anyone who does not travel to that country of their own free will and on their own initiative must have the guarantee that nobody forces them to go there. This is why I reject the draft agreement on extradition and judicial cooperation, discussed in the Justice and Internal Affairs Council on 8 May. I support the rapporteur's attempts to at least take a stand against military courts of justice, against what is going on at Guantánamo, and against discrimination against European citizens, and I fully share his view that any future change to this agreement should not be made outside the normal, parliamentary procedure.
Pasqua (UEN), in writing. – (FR) While this agreement could have been a real step forward in the fight against serious crime and international terrorism, this Parliament believes its support should be made subject to extravagant conditions and to considerations that are humiliating for the United States.
The reservations concerning the lack of democratic control or the requirement for a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights seem almost fanciful in view of the serious accusations levelled against the United States.
Is it some kind of joke when the report says that the judicial system of some US States does not offer the same level of guarantees that the European Court of Human Rights and EU measures seek to provide for EU Member States?
And what are we to make of the remarks about the untimely nature of an agreement with the United States when several European Union citizens are still being held at the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, quite unlawfully and without the slightest guarantee that they will receive a fair trial?
When otherworldliness reaches such proportions and produces such absurdities – how can terrorists be equated with ordinary prisoners under common law? – it is bordering on stupidity.
Ribeiro and Castro (UEN), in writing. (PT) I have voted against the report because I believe that the rapporteur has exceeded the competences conferred on the European Parliament by the Treaties, and is seeking, through interpretive methods with which I do not agree, to increase the number and the volume of dossiers that will be subject to consultation.
In fact, my interpretation of Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union diverges from the one put forward in this report, and I believe that the words ‘... main aspects and... basic choices’ of common foreign and security policy must not be understood to be ‘practical agreements’ and ‘specific countries’, however wide-ranging the agreements or however important our counterpart might be.
The assumption that the silence of the law lays down a specific obligation for the Council and that this supposed specific obligation results in a general rule laying down the obligation to consult Parliament is an interpretation with which I clearly cannot agree.
I believe that the attempt to impose the State model at Community level does not reflect the current State of the Union. There is no basis for attempting to give the European Parliament competences similar to those of a national Parliament.
Most particularly, I regret the fact that the original proposal for a recommendation should have been replaced by quite aggressive initiatives, which do nothing to encourage the signing of the EU-US agreements that are the basis for this recommendation.
Having gone through the debate, at the end Commissioner Vitorino kind of explains that matters are not all perhaps as they should be—yet! I put these passages in full.
Vitorino, Commission. Mr President, in this debate the Commission acted like an amicus curiae because it was not the negotiator, it assisted the successive Council presidencies in their negotiations. Therefore, I will just try to clarify some of the points raised and give the Commission's opinion on those points.
I shall begin with Article 13. I shall try to make myself clear. The US-EU agreement is a bilateral agreement that regulates the relationship between the European Union and the United States of America. It does not regulate the relationship between the Member States of the European Union among themselves or the obligations that Member States have under other international legal instruments. All the Member States have subscribed to the European Convention on Human Rights and to the specific protocol that forbids the death penalty. This means that, acting in accordance with their international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, Member States will refuse extradition where the death penalty is concerned.
That does not derive from an obligation between the European Union and the United States of America. It derives directly from the obligation of the Member States to be in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, with the protocol and, I hope, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that will have constitutional status and be legally binding after its inclusion in the new Constitutional Treaty.
When it comes to the International Criminal Court, I would draw your attention to the fact that Article 10 of the agreement does not apply to the International Criminal Court because that court is not a state and Article 10 only regulates the criteria to be used when there is simultaneously, in regard to a same person, a conflicting request by a third state – like the United States of America – and by a European Union Member State. It does not deal with requests from the International Criminal Court. Therefore, nothing prevents the Member States from deciding what they want to do as far as a request from the International Criminal Court is concerned, irrespective of any bilateral agreement with the United States of America.
When it comes to the European arrest warrant as such, I can even agree with Parliament. However, unfortunately, the Council did not adopt the Commission's proposal on the primacy of the European arrest warrant. Therein lies the problem. We are not talking today about a fully comprehensive primacy of the European arrest warrant over any other request for extradition. It does not exist. The framework decision on the European arrest warrant already recognises that when there is a demand under a European arrest warrant and a simultaneous demand for extradition by a third country, there are a number of criteria that will have to be taken into consideration in order to decide which demand has primacy. So we are not changing the legal system of the European Union. The Commission regrets that this primacy was not recognised in the past when the Council adopted the European arrest warrant. However, today this primacy does not exist and therefore cannot be affected by the terms of a bilateral agreement with the United States.
What we were careful to say was that the possibility of recognising in the future the primacy of the European arrest warrant could not be undermined or limited by this kind of bilateral agreement. There is a specific provision on the revision of this kind of bilateral agreement with the United States in case we decide to recognise the primacy of the European arrest warrant in the future. I hope that sooner or later we will do that.
Finally, on the matter of special courts. It must be said that the key issue for me – and I have always said this to Parliament – is not the nature of the court, it is not the question of special courts as such – even some Member States have special courts in the European Union. The question is one of due and fair process and guarantees, so that extradition is only granted where there are guarantees that the requesting Member State will follow a due and fair process. There are two recitals in the agreements that address this issue. The first one concerns due regard for the rights of individuals and the rule of law; the second one concerns the guarantees and the respective legal systems which provide for the right to a fair trial of an extradited person.
Above all, there is Article 16a on non-derogation, which in paragraph 1 maintains all grounds for refusal relating to a matter not governed by this agreement available under a bilateral extradition treaty in force and which in paragraph 2 calls for consultation where the constitutional principles of the requested state may pose impediments to the fulfilment of its obligation to extradite. In my interpretation, everything that might be considered as a demand for extradition to a court where the rule of due process is not respected can give leverage to the application of this Article 16a on non-derogation.
Finally, I sincerely hope that in the future Constitution we will have specific provisions not only on consultation of Parliament concerning these kinds of agreements, which will become more frequent in the future, but also concerning the competence of the European Court of Justice to guarantee the full compliance of these agreements with the future Constitution of the European Union.
To get the gist of all this, the whole should be read in case I am missing something of importance.
For the contribution in writing-which are in full and hold important points, scroll down to the last pages and you will then come to the EU-USA points in writing.
Official Journal. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:068E:0140:0143:EN:PDF
Council of the European Union Civil Law European Judicial Cooperation 274 pages
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/CL_EN_WEB.pdf
Developments in the European Union 5th Report-it is all in here 44 pages
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/EU%20Division/2007%20annual%20report%20to%20the%20oireachtas.pdf
Have you any idea just how much and what the EU has done in our Name? Without using the Royal Prerogative and Royal Assent?
Why on earth do we want any one in those two Houses of Parliament any more? Can we really afford them? What I am placing on here now are just the “Tip of the Ice-berg” as the saying goes.
Things to come from the EU COM DOC’s. Not particularly to read, just to give you an idea of what is done in the name of our Government, and the Queen because she hasn’t given her Assent to any of this and each separate proposal re Legislation for the UK cannot and should not apply to the UK, for the wearer of the British Crown has not given consent nor has the Royal Prerogative been used before this EU legislation has been completed by Her Majesty’s Ministers. There are many more of course, and without doubt many more to come yet we cannot obey or contribute to any of this because all is contrary to our Constitution.
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 38 pages establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0759:FIN:EN:PDF
Brussels, 15.11.2011
COM(2011) 749 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Building an open and secure Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-2020
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/749.pdf
COM(2011) 750 final
2011/0365 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/750.pdf
Brussels, 15.11.2011
COM(2011) 758 final
2011/0344 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0758:FIN:EN:PDF
Brussels, 15.11.2011
COM(2011) 759 final
2011/0369 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0759:FIN:EN:PDF
Brussels, 21.11.2011
COM(2011) 796 final
DRAFT AMENDING BUDGET N° 7 TO THE GENERAL BUDGET 2011
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY SECTION
Section III – Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/2011/DAB/DAB7_com_2011_796_en.pdf
Brussels, 23.11.2011
COM(2011) 813 final 4 pages only
2011/0390 (CNS)
Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0813:FIN:EN:PDF
Brussels, XXX
COM(2011) 814 / 4 59 pages
2011/0392 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the implementation and exploitation of European satellite navigation systems
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/satnav/galileo/files/gnss-regulation-draft_en.pdf
Brussels, 30.11.2011 3 pages
COM(2011) 816 final
COMMISSION OPINION of 30.11.2011 on the independent expert evaluation on the EIT http://eit.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/EC_SIA/commission-opinion-on-the-external-evaluation_en.pdf
Brussels, 30.11.2011 40 pages
COM(2011) 817 final
2011/0384 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
http://eit.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/EC_SIA/proposal-for-regulation_en.pdf
Brussels, 23.11.2011 COM(2011) 818 final GREEN PAPER on the feasibility of introducing Stability Bonds
Brussels, 23.11.2011
COM(2011) 819 final
2011/385 (COD)
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/proposal_strength_eco_en.pdf
AND A VERY LOT MORE BESIDES.
Can we leave the European Union. Preferable by our Government deciding it is time to leave and preferable without a referendum. a) Sadly I no longer trust any British Political Party or Government to hold a true and fair referendum on this subject any more. b)Too many lies regarding the EC/EEC/EU have been told by very ‘distinguished’ people right from the start when people were told “There would be no loss of essential Sovereignty”. c) Governments have incorporated far too much EU legislation on the pretence it is THEIR idea when most have started its Journey from the EU. (Localism Act, HS2=part of EU’s Ten-T, The Draft Communication ‘s Bill, known as the Snoopers Bill stems from the intrusive EU Directive 2006/24/EC, and COM/2012/09 where the EU as a whole is to take over in place of NATIONAL protections of their citizen’s privacy, All the informantion collect will go to the EU, Ah yes, and to the USA too. Even Mr Cameron’s rant about Gender Recognition and his speech on it in the Daily Mail recently, yet here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P7-RC-2012-0234&language=EN Try this one. Combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity Council of Europe standards http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Publications/LGBT_EN.pdf Now you know why he is all for this legislation. From looking at new proposals, there is very little left for NATIONAL Governments to do. Perhaps the time has come when the State of European Union takes over and governs all those once free countries through the EU’s Committee of the Regions? Leave it to late to get out, and we are eventually looking at World Government.
Withdrawal from the EU here Although preferable to withdraw before the EU falls and crumbles to bits, or didn’t anyone notice the anger and desperation of many people on the Continent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union
But the UK also can repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and that prevents further actions re the Community going though, and then repudiate the Treaties via the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties.
Sadly if the Government does not take this Country out of the EU, the people may be so angry that they will “take themselves out. This may well lead to never having a British Government ever again-not one as we recognise one as such. Remember Magna Carta.
AP
Posts
