Reproduced from the website of UKIP BREXIT spokesman Gerard Batten MEP which was posted earlier today
The resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK Ambassador to the EU, is a positive step forward for Brexit. He realised his position was untenable and he did the decent thing and resigned.
Next, we need to lose our EU Commissioner Sir Julian King. If he does not want to resign, Mrs May should reassign him or pension him off.
We don’t need and EU Ambassador and or a Commissioner – what we desperately we need someone interfacing with the EU who actually wants to leave and will get on assisting Brexit and not hindering it.
The following is a guest post by our London MEP and UKIP BREXIT spokesman, Gerard Batten
The 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union on 23rd June 2016 expected that to happen without delay. But six months later Prime Minister Theresa May has done nothing to make it happen. What is more she does not intend to do anything for another three months, and even then she will not commit to what Brexit actually means.
We have no reason to trust Theresa May. She was a Remainer in the Referendum campaign, and had Remain won she would be telling us it was the right decision and in our best interests. Having been on the losing side, she now finds herself in charge of implementing the winning sides decision. But instead of outlining her EU exit strategy, she merely mouths the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’ without explaining what it means.
The following article was recently sent to me by Professor Tim Congdon CBE, former economics spokesman of UKIP (Pictured below)
It is reproduced here with his kind permission
1. Theresa May and Chris Grayling, and the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, have let it be known that they want the UK
i. to repudiate or anyhow ‘to disapply’ (a new word intended to be more polite, I suppose) the European Convention on Human Rights and
ii. to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The ECHR has used the Convention to justify such monstrosities as voting rights for prisoners and the prevention of extradition on the grounds that notorious criminals have ‘family rights’.
It seems that May and Grayling did not understand that the UK cannot disapply the Convention or withdraw from the ECHR’s jurisdiction, and still remain in the EU. I am not joking. If it staggers you that they did not understand the current legal and constitutional position, well, it staggers me too.
A few searches in Google would have established the matter, but the key change was in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Article 6(2) of that treaty says that the EU shall accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention – which falls under the jurisdiction of the ECHR – then applies to all EU member states. The fact that the ECHR is not, strictly speaking, an EU institution is neither here nor there. (Needless to say, Article 6 is immediately made ambiguous by a protocol – Protocol [No. 8] – which says that application of the Convention must not undermine specific characteristics of EU law. These lawyers have a lot of fun, don’t they?)
Anyhow the civil servants have now told May and Grayling the truth. This is that the only way that the Convention can be disapplied, and for the ECHR’s judgements to be rendered inapplicable/ineffective on British soil, is for the UK to leave the EU. Does that mean that May and Grayling want the UK to leave the EU? After all, that would be the logical implication. No, it does not. Almost certainly, it means that they want David Cameron to include the subject in his renegotiation agenda, so that the UK can discuss a new UK-EU relationship after – or rather in the unlikely event that – the Conservative have won the next general election.
What does all this mean for UKIP? I now have it on good authority that Philip Hammond’s 20th July statement on the Andrew Marr show (that he would want the UK to leave the EU if the status quo were to continue) had been cleared with David Cameron, the Prime Minister. (This is just what I thought.) I also have it on good authority that the May/Grayling repudiation of the Convention/ECHR had not been cleared with Cameron. (A bit of a surprise to me.) However, Cameron did force Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, to resign. Grieve, by all accounts a nice and clever man, was a Europhile who fully appreciated that – because of the Lisbon Treaty – the UK had to accept ECHR’s verdicts on such issues as votes for prisoners, no extradition if criminals have families, etc.
One has to wonder quite what game May and Grayling think they are playing. May fancies herself as Prime Minister and seems to be trying to position herself on the Eurosceptic side of the Conservative Party. (Admittedly, it is entirely likely that she is fed up, even furious, with the ECHR.) I am 100% certain that most of the Thatcherite, Eurosceptic, so-called ‘right wing’ Conservative MPs can’t stand her, and that her prospects of support from such MPs are more or less zero. But the larger message – as I said in my last e-mail – is that the Conservatives, including Cameron, will be falling over themselves to make Eurosceptic noises in early 2015. Even if Cameron’s position is not being coordinated with his ministers, the Conservative Party will claim in the general election campaign that, ‘if voters want the UK to leave the EU, they should vote Conservative’.
UKIP must emphasize that the Conservatives are not to be trusted on this issue. It is the Conservatives?
i. that took the UK into the EEC (as the EU then was) in 1973,
ii. that passed the Single European Act in 1986, and
iii. that broke a cast-iron guarantee to hold a referendum on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.
The Conservatives have lied repeatedly about the UK and the EU; they have betrayed the British people and indeed large numbers of their core traditional voters. They are not to be trusted, and UKIP must say so loud and clear.