Published On: Mon, Mar 6th, 2017

The Lords’ Amendment and pseudo-citizenship

Share This

Maintaining FBEL – producing material, finding the time, and affording the man hours – is like Joseph interpreting the King’s Cupbearer’s dreams:  even though you’re proved correct, you don’t get to leave jail. It didn’t take very long for predictions made in these pages about Fake Brexit to be vindicated. The latest is the Lords’ Amendment to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The clue to what this legislation is all about is in the name – it gives the executive branch of Government authority to trigger Article 50, or formally notify the EU with an intention to withdraw. From this notification comes a process of negotiation about the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but what many people don’t know – and we can thank corporate-media for it – is that the process is entirely superfluous, and is really for delivering a fudge that is in the best interests of the few technocrats who run the EU, and not the British people. This outcome has been termed hereabouts as Fake Brexit.

The crux of leaving the EU is in the repealing of the European Communities Act 1972 (EC Act 72), and once again the reader is pointed in the direction of UKIP’s Gerard Batten, one of the very few who know it and wants to tell the public about it. All the British Government has to do for the UK to leave the EU is repeal the EC Act 72. This flies in the face of the received thinking whereby leaving the EU without triggering Article 50 is impossible as it would be breaching international law. The answer to that is simple. If international law is not in the best interests of your sovereign nation, then as far as you should be concerned it is no law. The negotiations between the EU and the traitorous British Government are talks between two wolves to decide how best to continue to eat the sheep.

To avoid any unecessary labour over what would be a clumsy explanation, the following considerable extract from covers what we need to know about the EC Act 72:

The 1972 Act gives legal authority for EU law to have effect as national law in the UK. There are two ways in which it does this:

  • It ensures that some types of EU legislation – including treaty obligations and regulations – have direct effect in the UK’s legal system without the UK Parliament having to pass any further legislation. For example, safety standards on imported goods have been agreed at EU level and apply in every member country.
  • It means that some types of EU legislation – including directives and decisions – can be made to apply in the UK either by primary legislation (Act of Parliament) or – much more commonly – by secondary legislation. An example here is the Working Time Directive which was implemented in the UK via the Working Time Regulations.

The 1972 Act also gives EU law supremacy over UK national law. Where the interpretation of EU law is in doubt, the 1972 Act requires UK courts to refer judgment to the European Court of Justice. All primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament after the 1972 Act came into force on 1 January 1973 has effect subject to the requirements of EU law. This means that the courts are obliged to strike down legislation which is inconsistent with EU law.

(As the reader will see, the British Establishment tells people that the UK will automatically adopt EU law on leaving the EU, or to put it another way, EU law is something the UK needs to universally opt in to, instead of opting out of. But the above extract disproves the deception: some EU law is already UK law. The author thinks the Government employs a necessary sleight of hand because of years of lying to people about the origin of 80% of UK legislation; i.e. that it emanated from the technocrats in the EU.)

So, from the above extract we can gather that repealing the EC Act 72 means that any diktat from Brussels will no longer apply automatically in British legislation, the UK won’t be compelled to translate EU legislation into UK law through its own legislative instruments, and UK law would reassert itself as having primacy. The British Government won’t be bound by future EU legislation, and will recover a right to legislate independently – even contrarily – to the desires of the EU. Furthermore, Parliament will be able to scrap existing EU legislation as it desires. Essentially, it won’t have to be beholden to any terms that the EU thinks is necessary for exit from the proto-superstate, unless it accepts the new treaty that Article 50 inevitably concludes in (which will inevitably be a bad deal). To summarise: the UK doesn’t have to make a (bad) deal with the EU about the terms of its exit from the EU, meaning that, as stated above, the lengthy Article 50 negotiations are superfluous.

In fact, such is the simplicity involved in leaving the EU, it is quite likely that the Government wanted to disguise it by wrapping it in other legislative padding and other bluster lent to it by politicians and corporate-media. On the cards is the Great Repeal Bill, and a lot of disinformation. Let’s examine a lengthy extract from the Independent, which includes a quote from someone who should know all about what is true and what isn’t:

The Great Repeal Bill will instantly annul the 1972 European Communities Act (ECA), which gives EU law instant effect in the UK, and give Parliament the power to absorb parts of EU legislation into UK law and scrap elements it does not want to keep.

It will include powers to change laws using secondary legislation as negotiations over the UK’s future relationship with its partners continue. Major amendments or new laws may be put forward in separate bills.

“It’s very simple. At the moment we leave, Britain must be back in control. And that means EU law must cease to apply,” said Brexit Secretary David Davis.  “EU law will be transposed into domestic law, wherever practical, on exit day. It will be for elected politicians here to make the changes to reflect the outcome of our negotiation and our exit.”

Again, notice how Captain Brexit, David Davis contributes to the dishonesty, and is very naughty indeed when he suggests that the UK politicians will have to be beholden to negotiations with the EU. And this issue is absolutely key. It is the major deception that will be core to delivering Fake Brexit.

The Lords Amendment is all to do with the biggest headache for the British Government in the process of Fake Brexit: what to do about millions of European citizens who live in the UK on the back of the EU legislation. Obviously, all parties to the talks would like them to stay on because integral to the Globalist take down of a British middle class, and at the same time real purse-strings political opposition, is Babel-isation and balkanisation. How do they wangle this without upsetting people who voted for reducing immigration and immigrants when they voted to leave the EU?

Let’s recall the stages, as set out in a previous FBEL article, which  were proposed  as describing the process by which the British Government would convince the electorate to accept unpalatable negotiation outcomes: 1) the setting out of the EU’s position whereby there appears to be little or no flexibility, 2) the creation of a scare that seemingly causes the UK Government to surrender to the EU, and then 3) the UK Government being justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a deal that is not in its best interests.

The Lords’ amendment has everything to do with Point 1., but before we get into that, we also at this time see a scare being started (Point 2.) with claims that there won’t be enough people in the country to do all the required labour (Independent: “UK businesses are already facing recruitment crisis as Polish workers head home”). However, chairman of Migration Watch, Andrew Green, reported to their Lordships themselves that there would be sufficient manpower post-Brexit in the native population (Breitbart: “UK Can be ‘Self-sufficient’ In Workers After Brexit”). Nevertheless, expect this partiular scare to escalate.

Moving back to Point 1, the EU has already thrown a spanner at Theresa May’s early hopes of reaching agreement about “protecting” EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens (many less in number) in the EU.  In short, despite Theresa May making guarantees about the “rights” of EU citizens in the UK (and this seems to come down to an assurance that 5 years residency qualifies for permanent leave – if it is applied for), the EU won’t reciprocate with anything. The Lords Amendment is a further concession to the EU. Is the reader getting the picture?

Let’s take a look at the opening text from the Bill with the Amendment in question:

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

(2) Within three months of exercising the power under subsection (1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future.

The important aspect is the interest in having proposals ready in three months, which must be related to the fact that the Great Repeal Bill will be introduced in May/June 2017, with its taking a little extra time to go through the Houses and Committee stages thereafter. So, what we are seeing here is a proposal that law to extend EU-derived rights be ready so as to patch onto the repeal of the EC Act 72. Yes, commentators do reckon that the Amendment won’t get approved when it returns to the Commons, but we’ve been in this boat before with a Labour Motion which the Tory Government accepted, and in doing so made redundant the High Court decision about the Crown’s prerogative. FBEL covered it here.

Getting down to the nuts and bolts of what this all means, if the Government intends on extending the same rights to EU citizens that they have already under EU law, and to allow these rights to apply in perpetuity, then it will create an absurdity. Normally, foreign nationals are not allowed to do certain things with the Leave to Remain they would be naturally be granted on applying to live or work in the UK, such as draw benefits – and they certainly wouldn’t expect to be given council housing. The general rule is that foreign nationals must be able to support themselves. However, with EU citizens being given special rights, it means that there will be a second tier of immigration in which foreign nationals will be allowed the same rights as British citizens.

It was the hope of Leave voters that on leaving the EU, their Government could create a fair immigration system where people could come in to the country purely on the basis of merit. But instead the EU-derived pseudo-citizenship will give one set of foreign nationals an unfair advantage over another. And consider how a study by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has revealed that most EU migrants – 75% of them – would not qualify for a visa under a natural visa system: that means that EU-derived pseudo-citizenship would invalidate that disqualification. Not only would a protection against the displacement of real British citizens be dismantled, but we would generally see people from the Commonwealth, with relations with the UK that might go back generations, continue to have less right to come to the UK than EU citizens with about as much right to be in the country as war time Wehrmacht soldiery.

Most troubling of all is the closing statement in the Lord’s Amendement: “in the case of residency, their potential to acquire [EU-derived rights] in the future.” This seems to be saying that rights derived from EU treaties as they apply to residency in the UK, although they should no longer apply, will be something that EU citizens living in the UK at the time of Brexit, but who don’t qualify now, will have a right to remain in the UK in any case so as to eventually qualify for permanent residency – and thus pseudo-citizenship.

None of this is to be tolerated. Even so, even some well known names in UKIP have openly surrendered to the prospect of borders remaining wide-open for who-knows-how-long, apologising that law cannot be applied retrospectively, and that EU migrants who got to the UK legally should not be penalised. But this is a disastrous position to take, and it’s the unreasonable and controversial one.

If we can’t make new law – or, even more importantly, convert to a natural form of law from something that was artificially imposed by by an alien system – because we think it’s a little unkind that people who aren’t even British subjects would have to adapt to it – how else could we throw off the unjust law? Sure, we don’t convict people for a new crime if they were committing it before the law existed, but we do if they commit it after the event. Expecting compliance with new visa-requirements is nothing to do with retrospectively applying law. It is all about protecting British citizens, and creating a fair immigration system.

So, when the Government repeals the EC Act 72, we should expect to see the following:

  • A requirement for EU citizens currently in work to qualify for a work visa, and then a programme whereby the same have to apply for a visa frequently (at the same time, Government would be giving inducements for employers to employ and train Britons).
  • A cut off point for receiving any benefit.
  • A cut off point for council house residency (people who rely on benefits and tax-payer funded housing should be delivered into the social care systems of the countries they originate from).

The author cares not for accusations of heartlessness, nor any ludicrous charges of racism. He is determined to guard his country against what has essentially been an occupation by a foreign power through a vassal government, and to throw off all the trappings of such a thing. This means rolling back colonisation encouraged in droves by Globalist schemers intent of waging economic warfare on Britons and creating a clientele population who have not historically been free, that would eventually vote for Globalism, and impose it on a people who have fought and died to live at liberty (and who are currently engaged in yet another battle in the cycle of Republic vs Empire that characterises their history). If the reader thinks that repatriating people is a barbaric cruelty (which is a nonsense in itself; creating conditions for economic migrants to return to their places of origin is not to be compared with refusing refugees), then get upset with the Globalists who first decided to use those people as pawns, and who have made such a thing a necessity.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.