Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Email. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Email. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
Image
Image
Image
Image

The EU’s hypocrisy over the Internal Markets bill is clear, but shouldn’t come as a surprise

wIf the past few weeks have shown us anything it is that if the EU still sees itself as a peace project, then its view of itself is as misguided as it's regard for international law. As threats from the Commission, mainly Maros Sefcovic, to look at 'all legal options' against the Internal Market bill grew, you can easily pass over the fact that the EU has itself broken fundamental laws of the UN founding charter. This isn't a one-off occurrence, the Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement are teeming with anti-British self-determination provisions, which fly in the face of the 2016 and 2019 mandates.

For those who are unaware, UN resolution 2625 explains the principles of Friendly Relations and Co-operation between states, barring any signatory from meddling with the judicial-political independence of another state. It seems that the EU missed a step there, with the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) allowing EU law via the ECJ to have supremacy over UK law in Article 4(5), defying the 2016 referendum promise to regain control.

WA Article 4(5): '…the United Kingdom's judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.'

UN Resolution 2625: 'No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.'

This action is not limited to the WA, with the Northern Ireland (NI) Protocol featuring a similar testament to the power of the ECJ to interfere.

Article 12(4) NI Protocol: 'In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have the jurisdiction provided for in the Treaties in this respect.'

Now, it must be said that there are international courts which the UK has a moral and political obligation to support and adhere to, but there is a difference that, unlike the ICC, we will have no influence in the ECJ. No ability to nominate judges means a gross injustice to our freedom of self-determination, enshrined in Resolution 2625. This must sit well with the Commission even though it contradicts their efforts since the 1990s to make the Union more accountable; as well as with members of our Parliament who continue to support the bills.

UN Resolution 2625: 'The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

We can all agree that these actions are part of a trend of the negotiations by the EU to force the UK to their demands, citing the supremacy of EU laws morally and legally. But the EU is only a European supranational organisation, it is not (against its deepest wishes) a global organisation, like the UN. If all of these other legal arguments aren't enough, the ending of the charter, as seen below, makes it clear. That nothing, including other international agreements, comes before a state upholding its right to exercise full sovereignty over its present and future political, judicial and cultural independence.

UN Resolution 2625: 'Where obligations under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations, the obligations under the Charter shall prevail'.

This continuous violation of the core principles of our modern world by now shouldn't come as a surprise. However, the lack of attention given to it puzzles me and it should puzzle everyone. There are still MPs who are prepared to challenge the government over Covid-19 rules, but not the EU when it breaks and attempts to supersede UN law. The hypocrisy between how the EU sees itself and how it conducts itself has been prevalent since 23rd June 2016 and will continue to be prevalent. Whenever their actions and violations will be given the attention which they deserve, remains to be seen.
The UK desperately needs a breakthrough in R&D, bu...
The EU’s unlevel playing field; why Britain must r...

Related Posts

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://www.brugesgroup.com/

Copyright ©1989-2020 The Bruges Group. All Rights Reserved.
Site designed by WA Designs