I want to show you something.
If you take ten minutes to read this THREAD you will be armed with an unbeatable argument to demolish one of the greatest Remainer myths.
First, the myth...
You need not be worried about further integration into the European Union.
We cannot lose any more sovereignty or transfer any power to the EU unless we do so, voluntarily, by agreeing to amend the EU treaties.
We are in control, they say, of which further powers the UK cedes to the EU.
We have an absolute veto over handing further power to the EU.
Your fears that the EU will "grab" more power from the UK are unfounded and ignorant, they say.
That's the myth, OK.
Now let's look at the source of the myth.
It is true that Treaty changes cannot be made against the wishes of the UK Government (Art 48(4) Treaty on European Union).
The UK Government has a veto on Treaty changes, OK - agreed.
There is also a democratic check on any further treaty amendments.
It is a principle of UK law that an Act of Parliament is required if an international treaty is intended to give effect in domestic law to matters embodied in the treaty.
So, for example, when the UK Government agreed the Lisbon Treaty, which transferred law-making competency in the fields of space policy, energy, tourism etc to the EU, the Government had to pass an Act of Parliament - the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
If Parliament had refused to enact that legislation, then the Government could not have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty would have failed.
So that's a double lock, right - our Government and our Parliament have to agree to hand power to the EU.
But we actually had a triple lock on the transfer of power to the EU.
The European Union Act 2011 (now repealed) provided that a referendum must be held before the UK could agree to a treaty amendment transferring power or competence from the UK to the EU.
So without the agreement of the Government, Parliament and the People, no power could be transferred to the EU, right?
The Remainers have proven their case, right?
Wrong! Totally wrong.
And I'm going to prove it.
What Remainers miss is that the EU can take powers from the UK without amending the treaties.
Not only can it do so, it always has done so, it frequently does so, and, for reasons which I shall explain in this thread, it will always continue to do so.
The EU takes power by using one of its institutions over which the UK Government, Parliament and People have no control whatsoever.
The European Court of Justice (the ECJ)
Here's a thing.
The ECJ regularly and deliberately ignores what the treaties say and rewrites them via the back door.
It does so in order to achieve its overriding objective - "ever closer union".
The ECJ judges put it like this.
They say that all EU law, including the Treaties themselves, have to be interpreted in the light of the special "context" of the EU project.
And what do they mean by context?
They mean, of course "ever closer union".
The context which dominates all the ECJ's decisions is that "the treaties have as their purpose the creation of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" and they "aim to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe".
By adopting this approach, the judges, basically, just say "ah yeah, well, the treaties might say that but, you know, whatever bruv, ever closer union innit".
The ECJ constantly just rewrites the treaties.
The real engine room of EU integration is the ECJ not treaty changes.
I could have picked any number of examples to prove my point but I have selected the issue of CITIZENSHIP.
Let's look at what the Member States agreed in the Maastricht Treaty in respect of citizenship and then at how the ECJ blatantly overruled the Member States afterwards.
The treaty provisions on citizenship are in Art 9 TEU and Articles 18-25 TFEU for people who want a gander at them.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2012.326.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2012:326:TOC#C_2012326EN.01001301 …
Article 9 TEU says "Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship".
That is quite clear, right?
We are to be British citizens first and then, additionally, we are to be EU citizens.
Article 17 TFEU confirms this.
EU citizenship "shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship".
Clearly, what the Member States intended was that our fundamental status was to continue to be that of British citizens, with an additional status of EU citizenship.
So how come, at paragraph 64 of the Wightman judgment, the ECJ says
"since citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States"
You remember, Wightman (the case allowing the UK to revoke Article 50
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7722053 …
You see the problem right.
The Member States agreed by treaty that the fundamental status of their citizens would be their own nationality.
But the ECJ just says, nah, their fundamental status is EU citizenship. Sod what the treaties say. We aint bothered.
In 2001, (in Grzelczyk, C‑184/99) the ECJ simply stated that
"Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States"
Why? Where on earth did they get that from?
They just made it up!
para 31 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61999CJ0184 …
In 2004 (in Zhu and Chen, C‑200/02) the ECJ said
"By virtue of Art 17(1)... [which I quoted above]... every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States".
In 2010 (in Rottmann, C‑135/08) , at para 43, the ECJ said
"As the Court has several times stated, citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States".
If you read the quotes above with care, you will see that first the ECJ made up the idea that EU citizenship was "destined to be" our main status and then stated that it is "intended to be" (i.e. it is now).
They completed this journey all on their own - by judicial ingenuity.
The EU, via the institution of the ECJ, changed our status – yours and mine – from being, fundamentally, UK citizens to being, fundamentally, EU citizens.
Our Government did not agree to this.
Our Parliament did not agree to this.
Our People did not agree to this.
It’s possible that you don’t much care. Maybe you want to be an EU citizen first and foremost. Fine.
I don’t.
What do you think about that? Are you bothered? Do I count? Do I get any say?
The EU takes power like this all the time. It does not wait to be fed by the deliberate acts of the Member States – it feeds itself with power.
There was no democracy in this process and nor was it done in accordance with the rule of law.
When Courts make things up, rather than apply, interpret and modify the law, that is an affront to the rule of law.
The ECJ is an affront to the rule of law. And it is the supreme judicial authority over your life and mine.
End
ps. people are asking for further examples of the ECJ undermining national sovereignty. I don't have time but here are some things to google.
Direct effect
Supremacy
Human Rights (see Mangold and Herzog cases)
State liability
Free movement case law in general
parallelism...
...the interpretation of competences generally
criminal sanctions
merger control in competition law
See also opinion 191 where the ECJ directly challenged EEA Agreement (a treaty)
I'll do some threads on some of these some time.
Afterword - in response to some of the replies here is a short note explaining how all of the above constitutes a transfer of power from the British citizen to Brussels - without our democratic consent and against our wishes.
https://app.box.com/s/2fbm47frjwm8476di4o63cxwjk2ywsfa …
You can follow @LBSProtect.
Bookmark
____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.
