Remaining in the European Union is not for Westminster Political Elites to Choose

“What the British want is an over-arching clause that states that the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over common foreign and security policy.”

To demand '... clarification on the place of foreign policy and common security policy in the future treaty, asking for guarantees about the independence of British diplomacy, particularly concerning the authority of the European Court of Justice in this area.”, does not mean anything other than confirming that the United Kingdom opts out of a European-wide foreign policy. But this opt-out does not include an opting out of a requested judicial review of a member-state's actions of any kind, or or an opting-out of means of redress for arbitrary state actions outside of , or transgressing, Union-wide constitutional safeguards generally applicable to all member-states.

A Westminster government spokesman in Brussels insisted that the bilateral talks between British and European Commission lawyers were part of the normal process of negotiating the fine print of a treaty. He said: “We secured all of our red lines in June. Lawyers are now turning that agreement into a treaty text and the UK will ensure that all its red lines are fully respected.” But the UK is in no position to draw lines on everything the EU can do , while it remains a member-state.

The crux of the misfit between the European Union and the the regime at Westminster is exemplified in the famous 'red lines'; while the UK can opt out of anything fom the currency to conditions of employment, to civil rights, to war-mongering, it cannot undo the relations between the citizens of the other member-states and their own constitutional systems and the relations of both the member-states and their individual citizens to the powers of the European Union, which powers are closely set out and regulated, with clear routes to means of review and redress.

This clarity of relations, precision on rights, duties, claims, liberties and redress, is precisely what the Labour regime of the last 10 years has sought to dismantle within the United Kingdom under guise of 'security' and 'ant-terror' measures; as UK individuals we can be arrested under an enormous range of suspicions, DNAed , held for weeks without being brought before a magistrate in a publicly accessible hearing, interned, we are watched by remote camera systems, required to explain our presence, denied access to ostensibly public places, our rights of assembly are removed, and there is little scope for questioning the arbitrary use of authority conferred on all kinds of state bodies and their officials, under enabling acts that are scrutinised only in the most general outlines of the powers being taken, by a wholly controlled legislature. We cannot initiate legislation, and we cannot abrogate laws and legal instruments acting as such. Redress for abuse of power is immensely difficult if not impossible to obtain.

And if the other citizens of Europe were asked to put up with all of this, they would point at their constitutionally enshrined rights and laugh. The Westminster Labour regime cannot have 'red lines' over the democractic, institutional, constitutional and legal expressions of civic governance and politics of other member-states of the EU, or the EU itself.

Just as a Spanish investigative magistrate was free to seek the extradition of Pinochet from England to answer charges on the torture and murder of Spanish citizens, so all citizens, as well as state officers, of member- states of the EU can initiate actions against those, private or state, whose choices offend their rights and obligations under European Union rule.

The wholesale wrecking by the Labour regime over the last decade of many centuries of organic adaptation to changing times and expectations expressed through a jigsaw of interlocking laws, declarations, practices, and understandings that typified the English Constitution, could put the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union to serious question and judicial challenge. It is now clearly very seriously at odds with some of the fundamental and founding principles of the Union.